
LlBRARV 


CONGRESS 


0 °oai3a^ 3]i 













































BY THE SAME AUTHOR 


PETER THE GREAT, EMPEROR OF RUSSIA. A 
Study of Historical Biography. With Portrait and 
200 Illustrations. Two vols., 8vo, $6.00. 

TURKISTAN. Notes of a Journey, in 1873, in the 
Russian Province of Turkistan, the Khanates of 
Khokan and Bokhara, and Provinces of Kuldja. 
With many Illustrations. Two vols., 8vo, $5.00. 

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY; and the Furtherance of 
Commerce. 8vo, $2,50. 



American Diplomacy 


AND THE FURTHERANCE OF COMMERCE 


BY 


EUGENE SCHUYLER, PH.D., LL.D. 

Corresponding Member of the Roumanian Academy, etc., etc., etc. 


Lately Minister of the United States to Greece, Roumania and Serbia 


NEW YORK 

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 

1895 


> > 

) 



\ 


Copyright, 1886, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 

--1 ■ ‘ 

L L 1 

631 9 A I 

MAY 18 ‘=*42 


TROW'8 

PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY* 
NEW YORK. 






TO 


THE HONORABLE 

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS 

DIPLOMATIST, STATESMAN, 
AND JURIST 






PREFACE. 


This book is based on two courses of lectures. 
The first series, on our Consular and Diplomatic Ser¬ 
vice, was given at Johns Hopkins University, and 
also at Cornell University, in the winter of 1885. My 
object then was to explain the actual workings of 
one department of our Government, about which 
there seems to be much ignorance and misunderstand¬ 
ing. My desire was to set forth the usefulness and 
the needs of these services to young men who were 
shortly to be called upon to perform the duties of 
citizens. My only qualification was a deep interest 
in the welfare of my country and in a service in which 
I had spent seventeen years.* 

* I may, perhaps, be pardoned for stating in detail my official 
experience. I entered on my duties as consul at Moscow in 
August, 1867; as consul at Reval in November, 1869; as 
secretary of legation, at St. Petersburg in April, 1870 (remain¬ 
ing there nearly six years, and being charge d’affaires in the 
absence of a minister for thirty out of seventy months, or 
nearly one-half the time) ; as secretary of legation and con¬ 
sul-general at Constantinople in July, 1876 ; as consul at Bir¬ 
mingham in October, 1878 ; as consul-general at Rome in 
August, 1879 ; as charge d’affaires and consul-general at 
Bucarest in July, 1880 ; and as minister resident and consul- 
general to Greece, Roumania, and Serbia in July, 1882. This 






VI 


PREFACE. 


These lectures were so favorably received that in 
the autumn of 1885 I gave another course at Cornell 
University, with the intention of showing how our 
diplomacy had been practically useful in furthering 
our commerce and navigation. The examples given 
from our diplomatic history are by no means all. My 
endeavor was to show only how we asserted our rights 
to freedom of navigation, freedom from tribute such 
as was paid to the Barbary pirates, freedom from the 
police supervision of the Ocean which Great Britain 
at one time wished to obtain, and freedom from the 
restrictions on the free navigation of rivers and seas, 
about which we had disputes with powers so remote 
as Spain, Great Britain, Russia, Denmark, and Brazil. 
At that time we had a mercantile marine and a carry¬ 
ing trade worth caring for, and therefore our efforts 
to assert the rights of neutrals in time of war followed 
naturally in the development of the subject. A chap¬ 
ter has been devoted to the fishery question, which 
has occupied the attention of dur statesmen from the 
beginning of our Government to the present time. 
The concluding chapter considers the efforts of our 
Government to conclude commercial treaties with 
foreign powers. It was impossible to speak of the 
purely political ends which our diplomacy has had in 
view at different times, without reviewing the whole 
of our diplomatic history. But even within the limits 
to which I had restricted myself there are many im- 

last mission terminated in July, 1884, owing to the failure of 
an appropriation. During my residence at Bucarest I negoti¬ 
ated and signed three treaties with Roumania and two with 
Serbia. 


PREFA CE. 


Vll 


portant topics which it has been necessary to pass by. 
Such is the question of neutral duties, as distinguished 
from neutral rights; such is the whole subject of our 
commercial relations with Japan, China, and the East 
of Asia ; such is the formation of the postal union, 
with uniform postage, which is due to the initiative 
of the United States; such are the extradition of 
criminals, the protection of patents, trademarks, copy¬ 
right, and submarine telegraphic cables ; the unity of 
weights and measures, and the question of a bimetallic 
currency. 

I desire to express my sincere thanks to the officials 
of the State Department for their courtesy and assist¬ 
ance in allowing me access to the archives and the 
library of the Department ; and to the authorities of 
Johns Hopkins and Cornell Universities for allowing 
me to print these lectures. 

Eugene Schuyler. 


Washington, February 8, 1886. 





CONTENTS. 


I.—THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 

PAGE 

Constitutional Theory and Practice.—The Secretary of 
State.—His Duties.—Assistant Secretaries.—Bureaux. 

— Law Officer.—Ceremonial.—Knowledge of French. 

— Secrecy.— Efficiency. — Economy.— Salaries.— So¬ 
cial Duties of the Secretary.—The Senate.—Treaty¬ 
making Power.—Questions about Rights of Lower 
House.—Powers of Committees.—Appropriations.— 
How passed.—Evil System.—Change of Rules.—Re¬ 
lations of the Secretary to Congress.—Publications.— 
Consular Reports.— Diplomatic Despatches.—Ar¬ 
chives. 3 


II. —OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 

Origin of Consuls.—History of our System.—Law of 1856. 

—Consular Duties.—Invoices.—Accounts.—Reports. 

—Consular Jurisdiction, Civil and Criminal.—Need 
of Reorganizing Consular Courts.—Examples of Hard¬ 
working Consulates.—Consular Privileges.—Qualifica¬ 
tions for Consuls.—Examinations.—Consuls should not 
be Merchants or Foreigners.—Grades of Consular 
Officers.—Salaries.—Fees.—Allowances.—British and 
French Systems.—Need of Reform. 41 

III. —DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 

Diplomacy, its Significance and Intention.—Rank of Rep¬ 
resentatives.—Rules of Vienna.—Ambassadors and 





X 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Ministers.—Reasons for Sending Ambassadors.—Eti¬ 
quette at Foreign Offices.—Detrimental Custom at 
Constantinople.—Ministers Plenipotentiary and Min¬ 
isters Resident.—Objections to our Practice.—A Sin¬ 
gle Class of Ministers Preferable.—Suggested Change 
in the Rules of Vienna.—Commissioners.—Diplomatic 
Agents.—Secretaries and Attaches.—Qualifications for 
Diplomatists.—French the Language of Diplomacy.— 
Naturalized Citizens.—Negroes.—Clerical Diploma¬ 
tists.—Appointments.—Letters of Credence.—Request 
for Acceptance.—Etiquette of Reception.—The Ques¬ 
tion of Diplomatic Uniform.—Social Duties.—Their 
Advantages.—Hospitality to Americans.—Lord Pal¬ 
merston’s Views.—Mr. Monroe.—Mr. Schroeder.— 
Effect of the Social Isolation of a Minister.—Duties 
at a Legation.—Despatches.—Complaints.—Natural¬ 
ized Citizens.—Commercial Questions.—Requests for 
Presentation at Court.—Necessity of Resident Min¬ 
isters.—Lord Palmerston’s Opinion.—Union of Diplo¬ 
matic and Consular Functions.—Relative Importance 
of Missions.—Salaries.—Allowances.—Outfits. 105 


IV.—THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 

Necessity of Protecting Merchant Vessels in the Mediter¬ 
ranean.—Our Situation after the Revolution.—Appli¬ 
cation to France.—Mr. Adams and the Tripoline 
Ambassador.—Adams for Tribute, Jefferson for War. 

— Treaty with Morocco.— Lamb at Algiers.— The 
Mathurins.—Effect upon us of the Peace between 
Portugal and Algiers.—The American Captives.— 
Donaldson’s Treaty with Algiers in 1795.—Its Cost. 

—The Dey.—Treaty with Tripoli.—Eaton’s Negotia¬ 
tions with Tunis.—War with Tripoli.—Lear’s Treaty. 

— War with Algiers.— Decatur.— Lord Exmouth.— 

New Treaty with the United States in 1816. 193 




CONTENTS. 


XI 


V.—THE RIGHT OF SEARCH AND THE 
SLAVE-TRADE. 

PAGE 

Negro Slavery.—Prohibition of the Slave-trade.—English 
Feeling and English Interests.—The Right of Search. 

—English Treaties.—The Police of the Seas.—Treaty 
of Ghent.— Lord Castlereagh’s Propositions.— Mr. 
Adams' Reply. — The Slave-trade Piracy. — Rush’s 
Treaty.—Canning’s Objections to the Amendments. 

— Mr. Adams’ Explanation. — Attempt to Execute 
Treaties by a British Statute.—The British Claim to 
Search American Vessels.—Lord Aberdeen.—Tyler’s 
Message.—The Quintuple Treaty.—General Cass.— 
Lord Brougham.—The Ashburton Treaty.— Cass and 
Webster.—Opinions of Publicists.—Brazil.—Renewed 
Vigor.—General Cass and Lord Napier.—British Out¬ 
rages in 1858.—Debate in Parliament.—The English 
Claim Withdrawn.—Mr. Seward’s Treaty of 1862.— 
Additional Treaty of 1870. 233 

VI.—THE FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS 

AND SEAS. 

A .—THE MISSISSIPPI. 

Mr. Jay’s Negotiations in Spain in 1780.—Our Claim.— 
Gardoqui in America.—Different Views of the North¬ 
ern and Southern States about the Importance of the 
Mississippi.—Carmichael and Short at Madrid.—Ob¬ 
jections to them.—Thomas Pinckney sent to Madrid. 

—Treaty of 1795.—Godoy’s Opinion.—Spanish Protest 
against our Treaty with Great Britain.—Incident of 
1802.—Final Settlement by the Acquisition of Louisi¬ 
ana and the Floridas. 265 

B .—THE ST. LAWRENCE. 

Petition from New York.—Instructions to Mr. Rush. 

Reply of Great Britain to our Claim of Free Navi¬ 
gation.—Mr. Clay’s Arguments.—Mr. Gallatin’s Opin- 




Xll 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

ions.—Suspension of Negotiations.—Treaty of 1854.— 
Treaty of 1871, Granting the Right Forever. 282 

C .—‘THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN. 

American Enterprise in the Pacific.—The Russian-Amer- 
ican Company.—The Russian Ukase of 1821.—Nego¬ 
tiations.—Treaty of 1824.—Further Proposals.—Pub¬ 
lic Opinion.—Negotiations of 1834.—Treaty of 1867 
ceding Russian America. 292 


D .—THE SOUND DUES. 

Origin of these Dues.—Tariff of Christianople.—Clay.— 
Wheaton.—Webster’s Report.—Burden upon Trade. 
—Upshur’s Report.—Buchanan’s Instructions to Flen- 
niken— Our Proposition for Compensation.— Its With¬ 
drawal by Mr. Marcy.—Our Notice to Terminate 
our Treaty.—Danish Proposition for Capitalization.— 
President Pierce’s Message.—European Congress.— 


Treaty of Capitalization.—Our Separate Treaty. 306 

E .—THE BOSPHORUS AND THE DARDANELLES. 

The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. 317 

F .—THE RIVER PLATE. 


River Systems of South America.—European Intervention 
at Buenos Ayres.—Decree of Urquiza.—Treaty of San 
Jose de Flores.—Difficulties.—Solution of Mr. Schenck. 

—Opposition of Brazil.—The Water Witch.—Trouble 
with Paraguay. 319 


G .—THE AMAZON. 

Our Treaty with Peru of 1851.—Brazilian Intrigues.—Mr. 
Randolph Clay’s Negotiations.—Bolivian Decree.— 
Peruvian River Ports Opened.—Intrigues at Lima.— 
England and France.—Mr. Marcy’s Reply to the Bra- 







CONTENTS. 


Xlli 


PAGE 

zilian Minister.—His Instructions to Mr. Trousdale.— 
President Pierce’s Message.—Peru Changes Face and 
Accepts Brazilian Doctrines.—Abrogation of Treaty 
with Peru.—Treaty with Bolivia.—Trousdale at Rio 
Janeiro.—Brazilian Decree of 1866, Opening the Ama¬ 
zon.—Peruvian Decree. 329 

H —EUROPEAN RIVERS. 

The Scheldt.—French Efforts for Free Navigation.—Trea¬ 
ties of Paris and Vienna.—The Rhine.—The Scheldt. 

—The Elbe.—The Danube.—Congress of Paris.—Ri¬ 
parian Commission.—The European Commission.— 
Treaties of 1871 and 1878.—Proposed Mixed Com¬ 
mission.—Roumanian Objections.—The Barrere Pro¬ 
posal.—Course of Russia.—Conference of London of 


1883.—Results. 345 

/—THE CONGO AND THE NIGER. 

The Congo and the Niger. 364 

VII.—NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


Subjection of Neutrals.—Our Treaty with France of 1778. 
—Armed Neutrality of 1780.—Its Origin.—Our Trea¬ 
ties with the Netherlands, Sweden, and Prussia.— 
Franklin’s Ideas.—John Quincy Adams and the Re¬ 
newal of the Prussian Treaty.—Our Negotiations of 
1823 to Preserve Private Property from Capture at 
Sea.—Letters of Marque. — Privateering.— Declara¬ 
tions of 1854.—Our Reply.—Treaty with Russia.— 
President Pierce’s Message.—Declaration of Paris of 
1856.—The Marcy Amendment.—Opinions of other 
Powers.—English Opposition.—Cessation of Negotia¬ 


tions under President Buchanan.—Proposal of Mr. 
Seward. — Its Rejection. — European Wars. — Our 
Treaty with Italy of 1871. 367 






XIV 


CONTENTS. 


VIII.—THE FISHERIES. 

PAGE 

Treaty of 1783.—Treaty of Ghent.—Our Contention.— 
Treaty of 1818.—Difficulties, Complaints, and Seiz¬ 
ures.—Diplomatic Correspondence.—Treaty of 1854. 

—Its Abrogation.—New Difficulties.—Treaty of 1871. 

—The Halifax Award.—Abrogation of Treaty.—Tem¬ 
porary Prolongation of Privileges.—Present State of 
the Question.404 

IX.—COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 

General Commercial Treaties.—The Most Favored Na¬ 
tion.— Special Commercial Treaties.—Changes in 
Commerce.—Our Earliest Treaties.—Commercial Re¬ 
lations and Negotiations with Great Britain.—Treat¬ 
ies of 1794, 1806, and 1815.—Reciprocity Treaty of 
1854.—Mr. Wheaton’s Negotiations with the German 
Zollverein.—Advantageous Treaty Rejected by the 
Senate.—The Mexican Treaty of 1859.—That of 1883. 

—The Hawaiian Treaty.—The recent Treaty with 


Spain.—Postal Conventions. 421 

Index.459 





PART I. 


Our Consular and Diplomatic Service. 




I. 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 

Constitutional Theory and Practice.—The Secretary of State. 
—His Duties.—Assistant Secretaries.—Bureaux.—Law Of¬ 
ficer.—Ceremonial.—Knowledge of French.—Secrecy.— 
Efficiency.—Economy.—Salaries.—Social Duties of the 
Secretary.—The Senate.—Treaty-making Power.—Ques¬ 
tions about Rights of Lower House.—Powers of Commit¬ 
tees.—Appropriations.—How passed.—Evil System.— 
Change of Rules.—Relations of the Secretary to Con¬ 
gress.—Publications.—Consular Reports.—Diplomatic De¬ 
spatches—Archives. 

If we were to put ourselves in the place of an in¬ 
telligent foreign diplomatist, anxious to discover for 
his own purposes who were the real depositaries of 
power in the United States ; if we could lay aside for 
a while the “ literary theory ” of our Constitution and 
of its working, which has been taught to us from 
childhood, and look only at the practice of our repre¬ 
sentative institutions, as they have been modified, 
and, as it were, solidified during the last twenty-five 
years; if we should study the facts alone, as if there 
were no written Constitution, we should find that, in 
the last analysis, the. Government of the United 
States, in ordinary peaceful and uneventful times, is 


4 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


a nearly irresponsible despotism, composed of five or 
six men, working under and through constitutional 
forms, and subject only to the penalty which is al¬ 
ways exacted for very grave mistakes. These six 
men are the President of the United States, who is, 
it is true, elected by the people, but only from two or 
three candidates proposed by partisan conventions as 
the result of intrigue or of the failure of intrigue ; the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, 
named by the President as his colleagues and asso¬ 
ciates, rather than his advisers and servants, con¬ 
firmed by the Senate, which never refuses its ap¬ 
proval except for cause of the most scandalous 
nature, or for reasons of extreme partisan feeling; 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is 
elected as such by his fellow-Congressmen at the dic¬ 
tation of a clique or as the result of a compromise be¬ 
tween the factions and the personal ambitions of the 
dominant party ; the Chairman of the Standing Com¬ 
mittee on Appropriations, and the Chairman of the 
Standing Committee on Ways and Means in the 
House of Representatives, both appointed by the 
Speaker, leading men in Congress, and generally his 
rivals for the Speakership. 

In time of war or internal disorder additions 
would necessarily be made to this list, both from the 
Cabinet officers and the chairmen of committees, for 
other branches of the service would necessarily rise to 


5 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 

prominence. I do not mean to say that no other 
persons have power or importance, but these are the 
chief depositaries of power, and without the consent 
of one, two, or three of these men no important step 
in public affairs can be taken. 

There may be times when, through fear of derang¬ 
ing the revenue system, or for other reasons, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means may 
voluntarily abdicate, as it were, and give up any active 
power; and although in the last fortnight of a Con¬ 
gressional session the Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations is virtually dictator, yet he may, and 
sometimes does, meet with a sharp and sudden check. 

It is impossible here to explain the causes which 
have brought about this state of things and have pro¬ 
duced this grave conflict between actual practice and 
constitutional theory, except to say in brief that it is 
chiefly due to the operation of the rules of Congress reg¬ 
ulating the transaction of public business in that body.* 

* These causes have been excellently and clearly set forth in 
the recent book of Mr. Woodrow Wilson on Congressional 
Government. Mr. Wilson’s views in the main coincide 
with my own, which were derived from study and some per¬ 
sonal experience of the working of our Government during a 
residence at Washington in 1882 and 1885. As it is disagree¬ 
able to mention names, I recommend to the unprejudiced 
reader a careful study from this point of view of all the pro¬ 
ceedings of the last two Congresses, especially the reports of 
/committees. Unfortunately the real work, and the methods 
employed, but rarely appear in the printed reports. 


6 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the 
Treasury are the only Cabinet officers who, in ordi¬ 
nary times, can influence not only the policy of the 
Government, but also the welfare of the country, with¬ 
out the permission of Congress, nay, even without, it 
may be, the knowledge of the President. The pres¬ 
ent delicate relations of the currency question, the 
silver coinage, the position taken up at times by the 
Clearing House at New York, the state of the gold 
market—the mere mention of these is enough to 
show how a sudden emergency may induce, if not 
compel the Secretary of the Treasury to adopt a course 
of action which may strongly affect for good or for 
bad the most vital interests of the nation. 

So with the Secretary of State. By hasty action, 
by an intemperate or ill-timed insistence on national 
or individual rights, by even a want of tact or a hasty 
word, he, or the agents under his control, may cause 
an irritation hard to be appeased, may embroil us 
with other powers, may involve us in the political 
complications of other continents, or may bring upon 
us all the evils of a foreign war. By an ignorance of 
precedent, by an unguarded admission, by an act of 
good nature, or in an impulsive moment, he may give 
up rights that we have jealously claimed for a century, 
or which we hold in reserve for future use. 

By the negotiation of a treaty he may, if the mo¬ 
ment be well chosen, draw the country into a scheme 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


7 


of annexation, saddle us with a colony or the protec¬ 
torate of a distant country, or begin a new, and per¬ 
haps beneficial course of commercial policy. 

In all probability, if we may judge by the past, the 
Secretary of State will do none of these things. He 
has been more carefully selected than any other public 
officer. Generally a statesman of high rank or of 
long experience, frequently a shrewd and cautious 
lawyer into the bargain, he has been too prudent to 
go a step further than where he has felt the ground 
entirely sure. Sometimes he has not learned that it 
was possible or useful for the United States to have a 
foreign policy, or that we had interests beyond the 
bounds of our own domain, until the expiring months 
of his administration warned him that it was too late 
to begin a new line of policy. So far we have erred 
more from extreme prudence than from rashness. 

Still the possibilities of what an enterprising and 
inexperienced Secretary, ignorant of foreign countries, 
might do for us, unless he were surrounded by thor¬ 
oughly trained and skilled subordinates, are such as to 
make this branch of our Government worthy of special 
study. 

The Department of State was among the earliest of 
the great divisions of the administration created by 
Congress in 1789, for facilitating public business, and 
during the first forty years of our national existence 
was in reality, as it still is in rank, the leading depart- 


8 


A ME RICA AT DIPL OMA C Y. 


ment of the Government. Our foreign policy was at 
that time of far more consequence to the country 
than our domestic policy. We still had to struggle, 
if not for our existence, at least for our position and 
our national rights. The Secretary of State was, 
therefore, the leading statesman of the party, and he 
was almost sure of succeeding to the Presidency. 
Our foreign relations were, on the whole, well 
managed, and while we did not carry all the points 
we tried to win, we gained some great successes 
then and since. Several of our earlier and best 
Secretaries of State had had the benefit of personal 
experience in the diplomatic service abroad, such as 
Jefferson, Marshall, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, 
and Clay. # This has happened since only in the 
cases of Buchanan, Everett, and Cass. 


* The following list of Secretaries of State may be con- 


venient : 

1789, Sept. 26. 

Secretaries of State. 
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia. 

Presidents. 

Geo. Washington 

1794. Jan. 

2. 

Edmund Randolph, Virginia. 

Geo. Washington 

1795, 

Dec. 

10. 

Timothy Pickering, Pa. 

\ Geo. Washington 

H 

00 

O 

O 

May 

IB¬ 

John Marshall, Virginia. 

* John Adams 

John Adams 

1801, 

Mar. 

S' 

James Madison, Virginia. 

Thomas Jefferson 

1809, 

Mar. 

6. 

Robert Smith, Maryland. 

James Madison 

1811, 

April 

2. 

James Monroe, Virginia. 

James Madison 

1817, 

Mar. 

5- 

John Quincy Adams, Mass. 

James Monroe 

1825, 

Mar. 

7- 

Henry Clay, Kentucky. 

John Quincy Adams 

1829, 

Mar. 

6. 

Martin Van Buken, N. Y. 

Andrew Jackson 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


9 


The Secretary of State is charged not only with the 
supervision and management of all the foreign rela¬ 
tions of the United States, but he has, in addition, 
duties which in other countries are generally given to 
the Keeper of the Seals or to the Minister of Justice, 
such as the keeping, promulgation, and publication of 
the laws, the custody of the Great Seal, and the pres- 


1831, May 24. 

1833, May 29. 

1834, June 27. 

1841, Mar. 5. 

1843, May 24. 

1843, July 24. 

1844, Feb. 29. 

1844, Mar 6. 

1845, Mar. 6. 

1849, Mar. 7. 

1850, July 22. 

1852, Nov. 6. 

1853, Mar. 7. 
1857, Mar. 6. 

1860, Dec. 17. 

1861, Mar. 5. 

1869, Mar. 5. 
1869, Mar. 11. 
1877, Mar. 12. 

1881, Mar. 3. 

1881, Dec. 12. 
1885, Mar. 6. 


Secretaries of State. Presidents. 

Edward Livingston, La. Andrew Jackson 

Louis McLane, Delaware. Andrew Jackson 

^ f Andrew Jackson 

John Forsyth, Georgia. 1 

( Martin Van Buren 

1 Wm. H. Harrison 
Daniel Webster, Mass. ] 

t John Tyler 

Hugh S. Legare, S. C. ad int. John Tyler 

Abel P. Upshur, Virginia John Tyler 

John Nelson, Md. ad interim . John Tyler 

John C. Calhoun, S. C. John Tyler 

James Buchanan, Pa. James K. Polk 

i Zachary Taylor 
John M. Clayton, Delaware. \ 

J ( Millard Fillmore 

Daniel Webster, Mass. Millard Fillmore 

Edward Everett, Mass. Millard Fillmore 

William L. Marcy, N. Y. Franklin Pierce 

Lewis Cass, Michigan. James Buchanan 

Jeremiah S. Black, Pa. James Buchanan 

: Abraham Lincoln 
William H. Seward, N. Y. ] 

I Andrew Johnson 


Elihu B. Washburne, Illinois. U. S Grant 
Hamilton Fish, New York. U. S. Grant 
William M. Evarts, N. Y. R. B. Hayes 

. J. A. Garfield 
f Chester A. Arthur 
"red.T. Frelinghuysen.N. J. Chester A. Arthur 
riiOMAsF. Bayard, Delaware. Grover Cleveland 


[ames G. Blaine, Maine. 


10 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


ervation of the Government archives, as well as the 
charge of all official relations between the general 
Government and the several States. 

Of the three Assistant Secretaries, the first is con¬ 
sidered as a political officer, in the full confidence of 
his chief, able to advise with him, and even at times 
to replace him ; the other two, by custom and necessity, 
have become permanent officials. Even in our chang¬ 
ing service the need of experience and special knowl¬ 
edge has at times more force than the demands of 
politicians.* 

These Assistant Secretaries take charge of special 
branches of the foreign correspondence, under the gen¬ 
eral supervision of the Secretary, although the rela¬ 
tions with foreign ministers resident in Washington 
are conducted by the Secretary in person, if he be 
able to converse with them, for not all foreign min¬ 
isters come to America knowing English, and those 
from South America do not always speak French, 
and not all Secretaries of State understand any other 
language than English. 

For the convenient despatch of business the De¬ 
partment is divided into several bureaux—the Di¬ 
plomatic Bureau ; the Consular Bureau ; that charged 
with the accounts of the Department and of all the 

* Mr. William Hunter, the present Second Assistant Secre¬ 
tary, has been in continuous service in the State Department 
for more than fifty-five years. 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. u 

4 

subordinate officials, which also takes care of the build¬ 
ing and property of the Department and of all in¬ 
demnity funds, bonds, and other money; the Bureau 
of Rolls and of the Library, charged with the keep¬ 
ing and preservation of all the archives of the Depart¬ 
ment, among which are included the revolutionary 
archives, some of which were formerly kept in other 
departments, the laws as they come from Congress, 
and other documents ; the Bureau of Statistics, which 
devotes itself chiefly to the preparation of the con¬ 
sular, commercial, and statistical reports in a form for 
publication. 

Another very important Bureau is that of Law, 
which is under the charge of an official nominally de¬ 
tailed from the Department of Justice, and which ex¬ 
amines, when directed by the Secretary, all pending- 
questions of international law submitted by the Sec¬ 
retary, and all international claims. It corresponds 
to what is known in most Foreign Offices as the Bureau 
de Contentieux. In England the head of this depart¬ 
ment is one of the permanent Under-Secretaries of 
State; and in the reorganization of our State Depart¬ 
ment, which must come sooner or later, it would be 
well if the functions of the Solicitor, or Examiner of 
Claims, his technical title, could be combined with 
those of Assistant Secretary. In the past this bureau 
has sometimes been negligently managed ; its incum¬ 
bent should not only be an able international lawyer, 


12 


A MEXIC A iV DIPL OMA C Y. 


like the learned gentleman who has consented to take 
charge of this work now; but he should hold a per¬ 
manent position, so as to enable him to keep the track 
of claims, sometimes ill-founded, which after being re¬ 
jected under one administration are sure to be brought 
forward under another; and he should have salary 
and position enough to keep him from the temptations 
sometimes offered by suitors who have large claims 
against foreign governments. 

The Index Bureau has charge of the current records 
of the Department. Every despatch received is sent 
there as soon as opened, and before it is acted upon, 
in order to be registered, indexed, and cross-indexed, 
and so marked that it may be found with ease and 
cannot be lost or mislaid. Letters and despatches 
from the Department are, in the same way, press- 
copied, registered, and indexed before being sent out. 
In one way this bureau is the key to the whole sys¬ 
tem, for without it all would be confusion. As to the 
Passport Clerk, the Pardons and Commissions Clerk, 
the Translator, the Telegraph and Mail Clerks, it is 
sufficient to mention their names to understand their 
duties. The routine of business is carried on much in 
the same way as in other departments of the Govern¬ 
ment, or as in the Foreign Offices of other countries. 

But eminently conservative as the State Depart¬ 
ment is in its forms of communication, and especially 
in the addresses of its letters—an American Minister, 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


13 


for instance, being never styled “ Honorable,” but only 

-, Esq., etc.,—we may notice the absence of 

any bureau specially charged with questions of cere¬ 
monial and precedence, an important subject in inter¬ 
national dealings, diplomatic privileges, and etiquette, 
such as exists in the Foreign Offices of England, 
France, and other countries. Since the Republic has 
been established in France, one of the officials of this 
department (which is called Service dn Protocole ) is 
also introducer of ambassadors and has charge of the 
presentation of their credentials by all foreign minis¬ 
ters accredited to the Elysee, thus taking the place of 
the former Masters of Ceremonies. Now if there were 
one person charged with this duty at Washington, 
the State Department would make fewer mistakes of 
etiquette in dealing with foreign representatives— 
though on the whole it makes few—and there would 
be no errors of title in the ceremonial letters which it 
is so often necessary to send to foreign sovereigns, or 
the credentials or full powers. It is manifestly wrong, 
for example, in a letter intended for the King of the 
Hellenes to style him the “ King of Greece,” and a 
minister already duly accredited to His Majesty the 
King of Serbia cannot present his letters of recall ad¬ 
dressed to “ His Highness the Prince.” Such letters 
have to be returned for correction, thus causing awk¬ 
ward delay. There are many small questions of eti¬ 
quette coming up every season in Washington—invi- 




14 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


tations to public ceremonies, the propriety of uniform 
on certain occasions, places, precedence—which now 
have to be decided by the Chief Clerk, who has too 
much else on his hands always, to think about these 
petty details, unless they are referred to him. I have 
heard officials of the State Department say that it 
would be far more difficult for us to receive than to 
send ambassadors, on account of the complications of 
etiquette which would arise, and with which no one 
now could deal. An officer of the kind here sug¬ 
gested would solve these difficulties, and would save 
all the rest from the responsibility which seems to 
oppress them when anything goes wrong. He would, 
however, lead a dog’s life, unless he had tact as well 
as experience. 

If I might make one more criticism upon the State 
Department, it would be to note the slight impor¬ 
tance given to a knowledge of French in the selection 
of clerks and officials. A fair proportion of the clerks 
understand French, and some Spanish, also a very use¬ 
ful language to us ; but this knowledge is not a require¬ 
ment for their appointment. Ignorance of French, 
which is of prime importance in our intercourse with 
foreign nations, forces also our consuls and ministers 
abroad to do much useless work in the way of trans¬ 
lating documents, which need never be translated at 
all, unless communicated to some other department, 
sent in to Congress or otherwise published. In 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


15 


nearly every Foreign Office in the world a thorough 
knowledge of French is required of every clerk, as a 
preliminary to his appointment. The clerks in the 
British Foreign Office must, besides a thorough knowl¬ 
edge of French, have a good knowledge of German. 

What is most to be remarked here is the secrecy 
with which everything in the State Department is 
managed. This is not only because the officials are 
usually careful and trustworthy persons, but because 
the general public is, as a rule, slightly interested in 
what concerns our foreign relations. It is only when 
some great subject is in dispute that the community 
at large is curious to know what is going on. In 
countries like England, France, or Italy, where the 
Minister of Foreign Affairs, or his immediate subordi¬ 
nate, has a place in Parliament and can be interro¬ 
gated at any time with regard to particular questions 
arising with foreign countries, the public is more or 
less informed as to the state of foreign relations, even 
though the progress of negotiations be kept secret. 
Here the only method for obtaining information on 
such topics is for either House of Congress, by a reso¬ 
lution, to ask from the President the papers on the 
question, and make an investigation, if considered 
necessary, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
Such papers can, however, be always refused if it be 
thought that their publication would be disadvan¬ 
tageous to the interests of the Government. It may 


16 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


be safely asserted that there is scarcely a country, 
even Russia or Germany, where so little is known by 
the public of the negotiations carried on at any one 
time by the Secretary of State. This has very great 
advantages, as it enables the Government to conduct 
with tranquillity a negotiation which may be ex¬ 
tremely necessary, and often to settle disputes which, 
if public opinion were excited, might result in a 
breach of friendly relations. This country was prob¬ 
ably never so near a war with England, since the time 
of the Trent affair in 1861, as it was about three 
years ago with regard to arbitrary arrests in Ireland. 
But owing to the secrecy, as well as the skill, with 
which negotiations were conducted the newspapers 
and the public knew little about it until it was all over. 

It is just this noiseless and quiet despatch of busi¬ 
ness which deceives many persons as to the amount 
of work transacted by the State Department. Be¬ 
cause little is said it is thought that little is done. 
Besides the ordinary routine work, a question asked 
in Congress frequently causes a month of hard labor 
in preparing digested commercial or statistical infor¬ 
mation, or in copying hundreds of pages of docu¬ 
ments. Clerks not rarely work till late at night, and 
all day on Sunday. The hardest work of all, in one 
sense, falls on that much-abused official, the Chief 
Clerk, who has to sit in a public room, accessible 
to every one ; must inspect every paper that comes in 


THE DEPARTMENT OE STATE. 


17 


or goes out; must carry in his head the whole business 
of the Department in all its details; must see every 
one who calls, assist those who have legitimate busi¬ 
ness, listen to the others and give them a soft answer 
but no information, and withal be patient and keep 
his temper. 

Indeed the efficiency of the State Department is, to 
those who know it, as remarkable as its economy. 
Hampered as it is by niggardly appropriations, all the 
expenses within its control are reduced to the lowest 
possible figure, and every penny spent, and every fee 
received, are rigorously accounted for. Probably 
since the war no other department of the Govern¬ 
ment has been so economically and so honestly ad¬ 
ministered as this. During the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1884, the total expense of the Diplomatic 
and Consular Service was nominally $1,288,355.28; 
but as the fees received amounted to $899,652.67, the 
real expense to the nation was only $388,702.61, or 
less than $400,000. About as much more was ex¬ 
pended in the Alabama and French Claims Com¬ 
missions, the Bimetallic, etc., Commissions, various 
Foreign Expositions, Electric and other; while the 
salaries of all the officials in the Department, even in¬ 
cluding the watchmen and laborers, amounted to 
only $127,290. The expenses of the British Foreign 
office and Foreign Service amounted, in the same 
year, to $3,205,748, and of the French to $2,883,362. 


18 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


The salary of the Secretary of State is $8,000, that 
of the Assistant Secretary, $4,500, and that of the 
Second and Third Assistant Secretaries, $3,500. In the 
present conditions of life at Washington these salaries 
are all too small. Owing to the climate, and to the 
pleasantness of the capital, there has been recently a 
great influx of strangers, and it has become fashion¬ 
able to pass the winter there. This has naturally 
brought about a great increase in rents, in prices, and 
in the general cost of living. For a long time it has 
been impossible for a man to accept the office of Sec¬ 
retary of State, unless he should have an independent 
fortune. His salary has been barely sufficient to cover 
the additional expenses necessitated by his position. 
There is no use of blinking at the truth. Whatever 
our theory, whatever our desires may be, the fact re¬ 
mains that “ society,” with the tastes, amusements, 
and expensive habits of “ society,” exists in Wash¬ 
ington ; that the Secretary of State, as the natural 
representative of the President, who in our theory is 
relegated to the White House, is called upon to play, 
and actually does play, a considerable part in “ society.” 
If the other members of the Cabinet entertain, they 
do it at their good pleasure ; but it is to the Secretary 
of State that Washington—and in the winter Wash¬ 
ington now represents the nation—looks for entertain¬ 
ments. He may possibly try to avoid these duties 
thrust upon him ; but most men would rather borrow 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


19 


or beg, than go down to posterity with the reputa¬ 
tion of parsimony and meanness. To come down to 
details, the President, except at state dinners, gives 
nothing but spectacles, and does not offer his guests 
even a glass of water. There may be substantial 
reasons for this, and yet when these reasons come to 
be examined they may turn out merely superficial 
excuses for bad management and bad manners. The 
whole burden of entertaining—for food and drink, 
as we all know, cost money—falls upon the Secretary 
of State as the President’s representative. But apart 
from domestic considerations, there are what might 
be called international obligations; and, whatever 
may be our faults, we do not like to be deficient in 
hospitality. Even reciprocity is sometimes a virtue. 
In European capitals, where the society is generally 
so large that a foreign minister makes his way solely 
through his agreeable qualities, and not through his 
official position, which merely gives him an entry to 
the society, the house of the Minister of Foreign Af¬ 
fairs is pre-eminently the place where foreign diplomats 
can meet the local society and can become acquainted 
with the ministers and chief officials of the country ; 
and where also, for there is a mutuality in the case, 
the officials, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs him¬ 
self, can get better acquainted with the diplomatists 
than is possible in formal official interviews. To 
transact business well, it is necessary to have a knowl- 


20 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


edge of the man you are talking to ; and this can be 
gained only by social intercourse. It must be ad¬ 
mitted that there is less necessity of this in Wash¬ 
ington than in most capitals, for there are few places, 
if any, where diplomats receive so much social atten¬ 
tion as with us. Still, it is necessary and proper for 
us, in the person of the Secretary of State, officially 
to reciprocate the courtesies shown to our representa¬ 
tives abroad. These considerations apply also, though 
in a less degree, to the Assistant Secretaries. They 
should be able to take some of the social burden off 
the back of their chief. It is just this representative 
character toward foreign nations which renders it 
necessary to select the chief officials of the State De¬ 
partment with more care, and to remunerate them 
more highly than is necessary for the corresponding 
functionaries of other departments, whose duties are 
purely domestic. Other governments have generally 
recognized this by fixing the salaries of the Ministers 
of Foreign Affairs and their chief subordinates on a 
much higher scale than for other officials. Their Min¬ 
isters often have official residences, with every conven¬ 
ience for entertaining largely, and an addition to their 
salaries in the shape of “ expenses of representation.” 

The Department of State is not the sole authority 
for the administration of foreign affairs, for here comes 
in the Senate, in certain capacities, not only for the 
confirmation of the nominations to diplomatic and 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


21 


consular posts made by the President, but also for the 
consideration and approval of treaties made with 
foreign powers before they can be ratified. Most con¬ 
stitutional countries nowadays have a similar pro¬ 
viso, that treaties must be approved by Parliament 
before ratification. In some countries even, as Spain, 
Italy, Roumania, and others, both houses are con¬ 
sulted on the subject, and discussions are public. 
Fortunately they can only affirm or reject a treaty; 
but owing to the wording of the article of our Consti¬ 
tution, which says that “ the President, with the con¬ 
sent and advice of the Senate, shall conclude treaties,” 
the Senate considers that it has a right to amend a 
treaty already negotiated, a practice which causes great 
difficulty, as frequently a senator, to whom the subject 
under discussion is not quite clear, insists on the addi¬ 
tion of two or three words to an instrument, which 
produces a long delay, and frequently protracted ne¬ 
gotiations. The practice, as we all know, is, that 
treaties are discussed in secret session, the theory 
being, partly, that the Senate in this case is acting as 
a privy council to the President, and partly that, if 
the debates were open, things might be said which 
would be offensive to foreign governments. As to 
this latter point, I can only observe that the practice of 
debating a treaty in open session has not been found to 
work badly in those countries in which it is the habit. 

There was from the beginning a feeling of jealousy 


22 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


between the House of Representatives and the Sen- 
ate, on the subject of the treaty power, which has 
manifested itself at various times and has become very 
evident during the last year, the House maintaining 
that as it alone is empowered to initiate measures 
touching the revenue, the President has no right to 
negotiate a commercial treaty without previously 
consulting that body. It does not seem that this 
contention can be supported by the text of the Consti¬ 
tution ; but at the same time the practice of our Gov¬ 
ernment has so much changed of recent years, in 
giving continually larger and larger powers to the 
lower House, that it is not without some reason that 
such a view should be supported. A commercial 
treaty concluded with the German Zollverein was 
rejected by the Senate in 1844 by a strict party vote 
of twenty-six to eighteen, on the ostensible ground 
that “ the Legislature is the department of Govern¬ 
ment by which commerce should be regulated and 
laws of revenue passed.” The true cause, according to 
Mr. Calhoun, was “ the bearing which it was feared it 
would have on the Presidential election.” * No such 
objections were made to the ratification of the Cana¬ 
dian Reciprocity Treaty in 1854, nor to similar subse¬ 
quent treaties, and, until the Spanish treaty came up, 
it was thought that this feeling had died out. 

* See Lawrence’s Wheaton, edition of 1863, Introductory 
Remarks, p. cvii. Letters of Calhoun of June 28, 1844. 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


23 


Such disputes, however, could always be obviated 
if the State Department, before making a commercial 
treaty, and engaging the country in a new commercial 
system, should, as was done in the negotiation of the 
last Mexican treaty, ask Congress for authority to 
conclude it. In all recent treaties a clause has been 
inserted covering this point, that the treaty is to be 
inoperative until Congress has passed such laws as 
may be necessary to carry it into effect; otherwise 
there would be the disputed point that, according to 
the Constitution, a treaty is superior to all laws then 
in force, and the actual practice that the municipal 
operation of a treaty may be abrogated by a law. 
Cases have already occurred, for instance, with regard 
to duties on works of art coming from Italy, where 
it is claimed that the treaty is infringed, but where 
Congress has been unwilling to pass a law removing 
the duties. 

The powers allowed by the Senate to its Standing 
Committees form another obstacle to the ratification 
of treaties, as it is impossible, except by an actual vote 
of the Senate, to compel the Committee to report 
back to the full Senate a treaty which has been al¬ 
ready referred to it for consideration. I cite at ran¬ 
dom one notorious case of this kind, where the United 
States made a treaty with Denmark for the annexa¬ 
tion of the islands of Santa Cruz and St. Thomas. 
Denmark had no particular desire to sell to the United 


24 


A MERIC A X DIPL OMA C V. 


States, but was persuaded to do so. The inhabitants 
of the islands had already voted to accept the United 
States as their sovereign. The late Mr. Charles 
Sumner, then Chairman of the Committee on For¬ 
eign Relations of the Senate, who was engaged in a 
personal quarrel with the administration, simply re¬ 
fused to report back the treaty to the Senate, and he 
was supported by a sufficient number of his commit¬ 
tee and of Senators to enable the matter to be left in 
this position. It required new negotiations to pro¬ 
long the term of ratification, and it was with great 
difficulty that in a subsequent session the treaty was 
finally brought before the Senate and rejected. As 
may be imagined, our friendly relations with Den¬ 
mark were considerably impaired by this method of 
doing business. 

Both the Senate and the House have Committees 
on Foreign Affairs. Practically these committees have 
lately had little to do, except as to treaties, with the 
conduct of our foreign relations, although formerly 
the Secretary of State consulted with them. Ques¬ 
tions arising with regard to foreign affairs in either 
House of Congress are generally, though not always, 
referred to these committees. The House Commit¬ 
tee on the Expenditure of the State Department 
acts in theory simply as auditor of the accounts; in 
reality it does nothing. Of late years, and until the 
49th Congress, the Senate and House have practically 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


25 


given up all control of the appropriations, and of the 
salaries paid to diplomatic and consular officers to the 
Committees on Appropriations, or rather to subcom¬ 
mittees of those committees, composed of three per¬ 
sons in each body. By law the Secretary of State is 
bound to send to the Secretary of the Treasury de¬ 
tailed estimates of the amount of money required for 
the conduct of his Department during the ensuing fis¬ 
cal year. These estimates are printed in a thin quarto 
volume, together with those of the other Depart¬ 
ments, under the title of “ A Letter from the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury containing the Estimates,” copies 
of which are sent to the several Committees on Ap¬ 
propriations, on or before the beginning of each ses¬ 
sion. In the Senate all the committees are elected; 
in the House they are named by the Speaker. The 
subcommittee of three which had charge of the ap¬ 
propriations for the diplomatic and consular service 
was generally named by the chairman of the commit¬ 
tee. The chairmanships of the Standing Commit¬ 
tees are almost the only honors which it is possible 
to obtain in Congress, and these only by long ser¬ 
vice. They have their rights to the floor and their 
little perquisites in the shape of clerks and commit¬ 
tee-rooms, and they are therefore much sought after. 
As the Speaker must make up his committees, ac¬ 
cording to custom, pretty equally among the various 
sections of the Union, and must, according to prac- 


2 6 


A MERIC A iV DIPL OMA C Y. 


tice, put on them a certain number of the minor¬ 
ity, he finds himself obliged to place the best men 
in the House at the heads of the various committees, 
and, therefore, it is impossible for him to make up 
any one committee, no matter how important of it¬ 
self, wholly of those persons who are the most experi¬ 
enced, or who have a special knowledge of the subject. 
It would, therefore, be an almost impossible thing that 
the Committee on Appropriations should be com¬ 
posed wholly of good men ; and unless the chairman 
were a man particularly interested in foreign affairs, 
in nine cases out of ten the Subcommittee on Appro¬ 
priations for the Consular and Diplomatic Service 
would be composed of persons possessing no previous 
acquaintance with the subject. The subcommittee of 
the House, then took up the estimates presented by 
the Secretary of State and prepared a bill. It was 
not content with the present establishment, and re¬ 
fused to be governed by the General Law or the Re¬ 
vised Statutes. It raised a grade here, established a 
consul there, pared down a salary in one place, abol¬ 
ished a mission in another, made an important change 
in a third, and so on. Some of these changes were 
often excellent and even necessary, but the principle of 
new legislation in an appropriation bill was, according 
to the rules, wrong, unless it were “ in the interest of 
economy.” The main idea of the subcommittee 
seemed to be to reduce the appropriation to the low- 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


27 


est limit, from motives of economy , they said; not 
that the nation at large cared for, or even knew of, 
this saving of ten or twenty thousand dollars to the 
detriment of its interests, but because the reputation 
of being economical, and “ watchdogs of the Treas¬ 
ury,” would possibly help them in their district, and 
their constituents might believe them worthy of a new 
election. The bill was then reported to the House; 
the party strength was drilled to support the commit¬ 
tee. Every amendment was voted down, for the men 
whose salaries were sometimes retroactively abolished 
were too far away to be heard; no changes were made 
save of one kind ; some objector invoked the rules of 
the House against every slight increase of pay or 
grade as “ new legislation,” but any diminution was 
passed without notice, because although it had evi¬ 
dently the same character, it was “ in the interest of 
economy.” From the House the bill went to the 
Senate. The general theory of the Senate committee 
is to reject every change made by the House, and to 
return pretty closely to the Law of the last Congress, 
restoring what has been omitted, and adding a few 
largish appropriations for unforeseen expenses, secret 
service money, or, as it is technically expressed, for 
“ expenses in carrying out the Neutrality Act,” and 
the like. These are necessary to bargain with. The 
Senate passes the amended bill with slight debate, 
except in unusual cases. We have now reached the 


28 


A MER 1 CA TV DIPL OMA C Y. 


last days of the session, when there is no time for the 
detailed consideration of any measure. The House, 
on motion of the member in charge of the bill, rejects, 
without debate, all the Senate amendments, and sug¬ 
gests a Committee of Conference; the Senate in like 
way refuses to recede, and accepts the conference. 
The two committees, or as many as choose to attend, 
then meet in secret conference, bargain with each 
other, give and take, each yield in part, and report 
the result back to their respective houses in such a 
technical form that it is impossible to understand it 
without a careful examination of all the papers; it 
is read hastily by the clerk, and it is passed without 
debate. It may, and frequently does, contain new 
matters never before proposed in the open House. 
And thus six men have secretly decided upon an 
important law and have forced it through Congress.* 

* As a specimen of the Report of a Conference Committee, 
here is that agreed to at the end of the last Congress, from the 
Congressional Record. 

“ The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of 
the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill 
(PI. R. 7,857) making appropriations for the consular and diplo¬ 
matic services of the Government for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1886, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recom¬ 
mend, to their respective Houses as follows : 

“ That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 
12, 13, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 43, 48, 51, 52. 62, 63, and 64. 

“ That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE . 


29 


I am not blaming either Republicans or Democrats 
—both do the same thing—I am only explaining the 
system which is getting to be the habitual way of 
passing all appropriation bills. We can see how de¬ 
bate is stifled, and what a chance there is for jobs in 
some bills. 

We must see also the disastrous effects of this sys¬ 
tem upon the public interests, vacillation in our 
foreign policy and disorganization in our foreign ser¬ 
vice. How can an already underpaid consul per¬ 
il, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 

3 6 , 37, 3 8 , 39, 4U 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 5°, 53, 54, 55, 5 6 , 57, 5 8 , 

60, 61, and 65, and agree to the same. 

“ That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and agree to the same 
with an amendment as follows : In lieu of the matter proposed 
to be inserted by said amendment insert the following : 

“ ‘ For salary of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo¬ 
tentiary to Turkey, $10,000. 

“ ‘For salary of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo¬ 
tentiary to the United States of Colombia $7,500.’ 

“ And the Senate agree to the same. 

“ That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 34, and agree to the 
same with an amendment as follows : In lieu of the sum pro¬ 
posed, insert ‘$319,000; ’ and the Senate agree to the same. 

“ That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 40, and agree to the same 
with an amendment as follows : In lieu of the sum proposed 
insert ‘ $48,880; ’ and the Senate agree to the same. 

“ That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment to the Senate numbered 44, and agree to the same 
with an amendment as follows : Restore the word stricken out 
by said amendment; and the Senate agree to the same.” 


30 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


form his duties properly and vigorously when every 
few months he has to consider the chances of having 
his salary cut down, or, when engaged in an impor¬ 
tant investigation by order of his Government, he is 
quietly informed that his salary ceased a month or 
six weeks before ? 

The interests of the country demand that our diplo¬ 
matic and consular service should be fixed by a gen¬ 
eral law, subject of course to necessary changes, to be 
recommended by the Department, and not undergo 
this annual tinkering, to which no other branch of the 
Government and no other class of officials are sub¬ 
jected. 

Since the above was written the rules of the House 
have been so changed as to take away from the Com¬ 
mittee of Appropriations the control of the appropria¬ 
tions for several branches of the Government, among 
them those for the consular and diplomatic service, 
which are given to the committee on Foreign Affairs. 
This important step will be greatly to the benefit of 
that service, and therefore for the best interests of the 
country. It has, however, still more important con¬ 
sequences, in reducing the tyrannical and unconstitu¬ 
tional powers of the governing junto. What has been 
written is nevertheless allowed to remain, in order to 
show to what point our Government had come when 
this salutary measure was taken. 

In countries where Parliamentary rather than Con- 


THE DEPARTMENT OE STATE. 


31 


gressional government prevails, either the Minister 
of Foreign Affairs or one of his assistants is present 
at the debates, and is able to show cogent reasons in 
support of the estimates of the government. Even 
under our system there is no reason why one of the 
Assistant Secretaries of State should not go before 
the committee and support the propositions of the 
Department and the plan already adopted by Con¬ 
gress and in operation. Unfortunately there seems 
generally to reign a misunderstanding between the 
State Department and the House of Representatives. 
Whether it be that the Secretary wishes to empha¬ 
size the fact that the Senate is in a way associated 
with him in the conduct of foreign affairs, or whether, 
acting on old rigid notions of Constitutional theory, 
he may wish to assert the divorce between the execu¬ 
tive and the legislative branches of the Government, 
he is not generally quite so accessible, nor so ready 
with explanations to the committees of the House 
as to those of the Senate. At least the members of 
the subcommittee have often complained that when 
they have visited the State Department for the pur¬ 
pose of consulting the Secretary on the estimates 
great reticence has been shown, and explanations 
have been delayed. This has wrongly impressed 
them as exaggerated secrecy, unwillingness to explain, 
and desire for concealment, if not rudeness, when it 
was probably merely owing to an imperfect acquaint- 


32 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


ance with small details on the part of the Secretary. 
The Chiefs of the Diplomatic and Consular Bureaux, 
who have, in the end, furnished the committees with 
information, have not had the power to accept sug¬ 
gestions in behalf of the Secretary. Indeed, instead 
of accepting changes, the Department has generally 
looked to the Senate to undo those made by the 
House. To such an extent has this distrust been 
sometimes carried, that (as I have the best authority 
for saying) recently a large appropriation, which was 
thought very desirable by the Secretary, failed simply 
because he refused to take the House committee 
into his confidence in the matter. The feeling of 
official dignity was stronger than the desire to for¬ 
ward his political views. 

The State Department is charged with the publi¬ 
cation of various information, especially of a commer¬ 
cial nature, sent by its agents abroad. It was the 
practice for many years to publish nothing sent by 
the consuls except their annual reports, which were 
transmitted to Congress, at each session, either with 
or without a general view of the whole subject of our 
commercial relations. Owing to delays in print¬ 
ing, these reports, which were published in one or 
two large volumes, were generally a year or two be¬ 
hind their date, and were of no practical service to 
merchants engaged in the export trade or desirous of 
obtaining information with regard to the commerce of 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


33 


other countries. When Mr. Evarts was Secretary of 
State a new system was introduced, by which the 
chief reports of consuls were published every month, 
and copies were not only widely distributed, but were 
sold. At the same time the consuls were encour¬ 
aged, by circulars and direct requests, to furnish far 
more commercial information than before. This sys¬ 
tem has worked very well ; and it is to be hoped that 
the practice of publishing the annual reports in a 
separate volume will be given up, and that they will 
be published as fast as they come in. 

It has also been the custom to send annually to 
Congress, and ultimately to print, a selection from the 
reports and despatches of the ministers of the United 
States abroad. 

Up to 1861 our Government published no regular 
collection of the correspondence between the Depart¬ 
ment of State and our ministers abroad. Sometimes 
a few documents, relating to an important negotiation 
or to a disputed question, accompanied the President’s 
annual message. More often such papers were sent 
to Congress in answer to a special resolution, and were 
printed under the title of “ Executive Documents.” 
Such special publications still continue;* but in 1861, 
to satisfy the natural 'curiosity about our foreign rela¬ 
tions, which at times during the civil war were very 

* A list of these special publications is printed from time to 
time in the Register of the State Department. 

3 


34 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


critical, Mr. Seward began printing thick volumes of 
“ Diplomatic Correspondence,” which, besides impor¬ 
tant papers, contained much that was trivial and un¬ 
interesting, even historically. In 1869 no papers were 
published. In 1870 Mr. Fish began again the publi¬ 
cation of annual volumes under the name of “ Foreign 
Relations,” which from their red binding came to be 
known as the “ Red Book.” This publication still 
continues. 

Such publications exist in many countries. In 
France we have the “ Yellow Book,” in Italy the 
“ Green Book,” and even during the last year a se¬ 
lection of diplomatic despatches has been published 
by Germany. The English never publish their de¬ 
spatches exactly in this form. They wait until some 
particular subject arises and some question comes up 
in Parliament, when all the papers relating to that 
point are collected together and published in the form 
of a “ Blue Book.” This seems to be the only proper 
way for publication, as it would be wrong to print, 
simply for the general information of the public, any¬ 
thing more than the routine despatches telling of 
negotiations which had finished, or of the state of the 
government, changes of administration, the economical 
and political situation, etc., in the countries where the 
ministers are accredited. Even with all the care that 
can be exercised despatches are not infrequently pub¬ 
lished which get their writers into trouble. It may 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


be remembered, for instance, that the late Mr. Marsh 
became involved in an annoying difficulty in Italy on 
account of the publication of a sentence (which he had 
even written in cipher) in one of his confidential de¬ 
spatches, questioning the sanity of the king. Of still 
more recent date is the difficulty with Germany, aris¬ 
ing from the publication of a despatch of our minister 
on the pork*question, which resulted ultimately in his 
recall, disguised under the name of transfer. Numer¬ 
ous other instances might be mentioned. 

It would be much better to cease printing diplo¬ 
matic despatches, unless Congress ask for information 
on special subjects. Even then great caution should 
be observed. Foreign governments sometimes make 
confidential communications, and in such cases it 
would be improper to print these communications 
without the consent of those governments. At present 
our ministers do not feel free to express to the Secre¬ 
tary their real opinions, for they have always in view 
the possibility that their despatches may be published. 
They must therefore have recourse to confidential 
personal letters, when they wish to say anything they 
do not wish to come back on their heads. This 
practice is useful, but it has the disadvantage that 
such letters are carried away by each Secretary and 
are not in the archives for the information of his 
successor. Even confidential letters do not always 
tell the whole truth. It has been said about the 


AMERICAN DIPL OMA CY. 


papers of a celebrated Frenchman, a plenipotentiary 
at the Congress of Verona, that they were of four 
kinds ; first, his despatches to the Minister of For¬ 
eign Affairs, which might if necessary be commu¬ 
nicated or published, showing how it was desirable 
that matters and transactions should appear ; second, 
his confidential letters to the minister, showing how 
he wished matters to appear officially; third, his 
letters to an intimate friend, giving an unofficial view 
of affairs which he wished to be regarded as the true 
one; and, lastly, his diary giving the naked facts and 
the exact truth. 

There are, besides the Statutes at Large, some pub¬ 
lications of the Government which, from their con¬ 
tents, pertain to the State Department, but which have 
been omitted in our enumeration, because these are 
publications of archives rather than of contemporary 
documents. Such are: 1. The “Diplomatic Corre¬ 
spondence of the American Revolution from 1776 to 
1783,” edited by Jared Sparks, originally printed in 
Boston in 1829-30 in twelve volumes, and subsequently 
reprinted in Washington in 1857 in six volumes. 2. 
“ The Diplomatic Correspondence from 1783 to 1789,” 
printed at Washington in 1833-34 in seven volumes and 
reprinted in 183.7 ' m three volumes. 3. “ The Diplo¬ 
matic Correspondence from 1789 to 1828,” entitled 
“ American State Papers, Class I., Foreign Relations,” 
published in six volumes folio, at Washington, 1832-59, 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


37 


part of a large series. 4. The collection of “ Ameri¬ 
can Archives,” edited by the late Peter Force, of which 
only nine volumes were published at Washington, 
1837-48. This was intended to be a complete docu¬ 
mentary history of the colonial and revolutionary 
periods. Such are also the papers of Washington, 
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, and Franklin, 
the expenses of printing which were paid either in 
whole or in part by the Government.'”' 

The Department of State has the custody of many 
important collections of papers relating to the early 
history of the United States. Besides the papers just 
mentioned, most of which were bought by the Gov¬ 
ernment, and are therefore the property of the nation, 
its archives contain a large mass of papers relating to 
our Revolutionary history, and other important col¬ 
lections, such as the journals, logbooks, etc., of the 
Russian-American Company, which are very valuable 
for the history of our Pacific coast. L he latest great 
acquisition comprised the Franklin papers found in 
England. 

* The cost of printing the proceedings of the Convention 
which formed the Constitution and the secret journals of the 
old Congress, was $10,542 ; of the first edition of Spark’s Dip¬ 
lomatic Correspondence, $50,881 ; of the Diplomatic Corre¬ 
spondence, 1783-89, $16,142; of the American Archives, 
$236,605. There were paid for the papers of Washington, 
$45,000 ; for the papers of Monroe, $20,000 ; and for the papers 
of Hamilton, including the expenses of publication, $26,000. 


33 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


There exist still in European archives many series 

of papers of the highest importance to our early his- 
•** 

tory, free access to which is not easy to the American 
historian, and of which very few have ever been 
copied or printed. Such are the military and diplo¬ 
matic documents, the reports and private letters dur¬ 
ing the whole of the Revolution, the papers relating 
to the peace negotiations, and the very curious diplo¬ 
matic correspondence preceding the War of 1812, 
which are preserved in the English State Paper Office, 
the British Museum, the Royal Institution, and the 
great private collections of England. Such are the 
important papers in the French, Dutch, and Spanish 
archives. The detailed reports of the Hessian offi¬ 
cers are kept in Germany, and even the Russian ar¬ 
chives at Moscow contain reports from a secret agent 
at Philadelphia, during the Revolutionary War, as 
well as correspondence from Paris, London, and the 
Hague, relating to American affairs. It is safe to say 
that with the help of these documents many parts of 
our Revolutionary history could be rewritten. It 
would seem to be the duty of our Government to pro¬ 
cure copies of all these papers, of whatever character 
they may be, to calendar them, and to print those of 
importance. In so doing, we should be only perform¬ 
ing our share of the work undertaken by most other 
governments. Nearly every country of Europe is 
now engaged in completing its archives from the 


THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 


39 


stores of other countries, and in making them acces¬ 
sible to the public. 

In this respect—of the accessibility of our archives 
—we are far behind other nations. Owing to the small 
clerical force at the disposal of the State Department, 
and to the illiberal ideas which, until recently, pre¬ 
vailed there, not only official documents, but papers 
which had been purchased by the nation, and were 
intended for use, were kept secret, and guarded with 
the most jealous care. The late Friedrich Kapp tells 
in an amusing way, in some of his prefaces, of how his 
requests for information were treated by Mr. Seward. 
Although there is now much more freedom, yet the 
rules with regard to the access to our archives are 
exceedingly strict when compared to the practice in 
most European State Paper Offices. The rules now 
in force are briefly these : 

1. General searches are not permitted. 

2. Facts concerning Revolutionary soldiers are com¬ 
municated only to the heirs of such soldiers who give 
the Department satisfactory proof of their right to 
information. 

3. Students and writers of history properly made 
known to the Department, are permitted to see 
and examine particular documents specified by 

them. 

4. So far as other official duties will permit, ab¬ 
stracts of papers are prepared for the assistance of 


40 


A ME RICA M DIPL OMA C Y. 


those who desire information about events of which 
there are no published authorities. 

5. All transcripts are made by the employees in 
the bureau in which the originals are preserved. 

If the Secretary of State would study the rules 
which now govern the archives of France, Prussia, and 
even Russia, he would probably see that he could be 
still more liberal, and could greatly facilitate histori¬ 
cal research by relaxing some of these restrictions. 

It must be admitted, however, that in times past 
our archives have been very carelessly treated, and 
many papers are torn and mutilated. They should all 
be carefully indexed and bound, and many of them 
copied, so that the original papers need not be handled 
except on special occasions. 

An “ Historical Register of the Department of 
State,” published a few years ago, gave valuable infor¬ 
mation about the history of our diplomatic service. It 
would be well to complete and republish it, or better 
still to print the thorough and careful record prepared 
by Mr. John H. Haswell, the Chief of the Bureau of 
Indexes and Archives, which gives the official history 
of every one ever connected with the foreign relations 
of the United States. 


II. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


Origin of Consuls.—History of our System.—Law of 1856.— 
Consular Duties.—Invoices.—Accounts.—Reports.—Con¬ 
sular Jurisdiction, Civil and Criminal.—Need of Reorgan¬ 
izing Consular Courts.—Examples of Hard-working Con¬ 
sulates.—Consular Privileges.—Qualifications for Consuls. 
—Examinations.—Consuls should not be Merchants or 
Foreigners.—Grades of Consular Officers.—Salaries.— 
Fees.—Allowances.—British and French Systems.—Need 
of Reform. 

So far we have considered only the central office, the 
home management of our foreign relations. 

We now find resident at various capitals and ports 
abroad agents of the Government, under the control 
of the State Department, belonging to two classes, 
those in the consular and those in the diplomatic 
service. 

Consuls differ from diplomatic agents (by what¬ 
ever name they may be known) that the latter are the 
representatives of one State or Government to an¬ 
other, while consuls are the representatives of the 
individuals of the nation sending them, empowered 
to protect individual interests, and to procure for 


42 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


their fellow-citizens, so far as possible, the same pro¬ 
tection to their rights that they enjoy at home. They 
represent commercial interests only, and while they 
can address themselves directly to the local authori¬ 
ties, when the rights of their fellow-citizens are in¬ 
fringed, if redress be not given they cannot apply 
to the supreme government except in cases specially 
provided for by treaty. They must refer the matter 
to their legation or their own government. In other 
words, they have ne diplomatic or representative 
rights, powers, or privileges. 

It is unnecessary to enter into any detail about the 
origin or history of consular establishments. That 
forms a part of the history of international law. It 
is sufficient to say that they began, in somewhat near 
the present form, after the Crusades and the decay of 
the Eastern Empire, when the Venetians and other 
Italian peoples began to establish themselves in the 
East for the purposes of trade. An officer was ap¬ 
pointed, generally from among the number of mer¬ 
chants, to decide the disputes between the members 
of these little foreign colonies on an infidel shore. 

From the East this institution came back to the 
commercial towns of Southern Europe, where the 
merchants took up the habit of electing one of their 
number to decide their commercial disputes, accord¬ 
ing to custom and usage, without the formalities of a 
regular court of law. These judges or arbitrators 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


43 


received the name of Juges-Consuls , Judge-Consuls or 
Consul-Judges, and their tribunals were the origin of 
the present commercial or consular courts in France, 
Italy, and Spain. The name was natural enough, for 
in those towns that had formerly been Roman col¬ 
onies, such as Cologne, Lyons, and Marseilles, the title 
of the great officers of the Roman Republic had de¬ 
scended to the municipal magistrates, such as, indeed, 
the Roman consuls really were, and in some cases 
was kept up to the French Revolution and Code Na¬ 
poleon.* Consul-Judge was therefore a natural term, 
and the transition to Foreign Consul was easy. 

The right of appointing foreign consuls soon passed 
from the merchant communities to their govern¬ 
ments ; the Hanse Towns and England saw the 
advantage of these officers, and before long it be¬ 
came a regular practice for one government to ap¬ 
point consuls to act in the dominions of another. 
The first English consul that we know of was Leo¬ 
nardo Strozzi, an Italian by birth, appointed to Pisa 
in 1175. 

The powers of consuls were by degrees enlarged, 
restricted, and defined. Gradually the legal jurisdic¬ 
tion over disputes was withdrawn in nearly all ex¬ 
cept non-Christian countries, although for questions 

* Other civic appellations were also in Roman style, and the 
inscription S. P. Q. L. appears on many of the public build¬ 
ings in Lyons. 


44 


A ME Ml C A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


of wills and intestate property this jurisdiction has 
been still in some measure kept. With regard to 
maritime matters the case is different, and here, for 
the purpose of avoiding protracted disputes in the 
courts of the country, the consuls are still allowed 
large jurisdiction. This is nowadays in most cases 
regulated by special treaties. 

Our own country, by means of consular treaties 
and conventions, has had the greatest influence in 
settling and determining the rights, powers, and im¬ 
munities of consuls, and as nearly all existing treaties, 
whether made by the United States or by foreign 
powers, are subsequent to the first publication of 
Wheaton’s “ Elements of International Law,” the pres¬ 
ent status of consuls is very different from that laid 
down by Wheaton. Perhaps the best exposition of 
the subject will be found in the “ Commentary on 
Wheaton” by the late William Beach Lawrence.* 

Nevertheless our Government has always main¬ 
tained that consuls had rights and powers coming to 
them from the common law of nations, though sub¬ 
ject to abridgment by Congress and to enlargement 
by treaties. Consuls were recognized as existing of- 

* Commentaire sur les elements du droit international et 
sur Vhistoire du progres du droit desgens, de Henry Wheaton , 
par William Beach Lawrence. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1868-1880. 
This excellent work was based on the author’s notes to his edi¬ 
tion of Wheaton, greatly expanded. Unfortunately it extends 
only to the end of Part II., Chap. ii. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


45 


ficers by the Constitution; the first detailed law re¬ 
garding them was in 1792, and before this Washing¬ 
ton had appointed and commissioned seventeen con¬ 
suls and five vice-consuls. 

The law of 1792, which was to carry into effect our 
Consular Treaty with France, did not create or even 
regulate the consular system, it merely recognized its 
existence, in imposing certain specified duties upon 
consular officers. Two previous and several subse¬ 
quent statutes did nothing more. The consular ser¬ 
vice was left entirely to the discretion of the State 
Department, which in 1816 made a fruitless effort 
to have fixed salaries, at least for the chief consular 
officers. There was another similar attempt in 1833, 
but nothing was done in this way until the law of 1856, 
by which our consular system is still in the main 
regulated, though various changes of minor impor¬ 
tance have been made since that time. A similar law 
had already been passed in 1855 ; but as by this the 
President was ordered to make new appointments 
to all the consulates, which were thereby declared 
vacant, this brought about a constitutional ques¬ 
tion of the -President’s prerogative, which was set 
forth in two opinions of Attorney-General Caleb 
Cushing, of May 25, and June 2, 1855. The objec¬ 
tions were obviated in the law of the following year. 
A similar conflict arose about the Appropriations Act 
of 1876, between President Grant and Congress. In 


46 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


the law of 1856 there was the first attempt to estab¬ 
lish a regular consular corps, by the appointment of 
consular pupils, but this section was abrogated by the 
Appropriations Act of the same year. The matter 
was again brought to the attention of Congress in 
1864 by Mr. Seward, and the President was author¬ 
ized to appoint thirteen consular clerks, not remov¬ 
able except for cause to be stated to Congress. This 
has never gone further. 

The main provisions of the act of 1856 were to give 
many of the consuls fixed salaries, and to classify them 
so that those embraced in a certain schedule, known 
as Schedule B, receive a fixed salary and are not al¬ 
lowed to transact business ; those in another schedule, 
known as Schedule C, receive a small fixed salary and 
are allowed to transact business for their own profit; 
and all other consuls (some of them now important 
ones), who are compensated by the fees they receive 
are also allowed to do business. Since then, by the 
law of 1874, the salaried consulates have been ar¬ 
ranged in seven classes, according to the amount of 
salary, from $4,000 to $1,000; but so long as there is 
no fixed rule of promotion from one grade to another 
this classification is meaningless. It in no way corre¬ 
sponds to the importance of the posts. 

In 1868 the Joint Select Committee on Retrench¬ 
ment proposed a regular graded consular system, 
based upon competitive examinations, and the report 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


47 


of Senator Patterson presents strong reasons for this 
plan.* 

Still more lately, in pursuance of a provision in 
the Appropriations Act for 1882-3, Mr. Frelinghuysen 
took the opinions of the consular officers on the sub¬ 
ject of reform, and made a report proposing various 
changes, and asking for a commission to study the 
subject with a view to remodelling the whole system.'!' 

Consuls are in a certain way charged with watch¬ 
ing over the execution of treaties, for they must pro¬ 
tect any of their countrymen whose rights are invaded 
and must immediately bring to the attention of their 
government any such infringement. In general, they 
observe the movements of naval forces of all nations 
on the coast near the port in which they are placed ; 
and it is their duty also to watch over the dignity of 
their own country in maintaining the rights of their 
flag. Not only are they obliged to give aid, advice, 
and assistance to the ships of their commercial 
marine; but they should, in their correspondence with 
their Government, report all events touching the 
navigation, the various changes in the commerce of 
the countries where they live, and especially anything 
touching the special commerce with the country 

* Senate Report, No. 154, 40th Congress, 2d Session. 

f The report is dated March 20, 1884, with a supplement 
of January 5, 1885, 48th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Ex. 
Doc., No. 121 ; 48th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Ex. Doc., 
No. 65. 


43 


A MERICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


which sends them. In fine, they are bound to keep 
pace with the state and progress of manufactures, the 
rise of new branches of industry, and, in general, the 
increase or diminution of the public wealth, taking 
especial care to be well acquainted with all matters 
where other countries may gain advantage over their 
own. They are given a sort of police jurisdiction 
over the commercial vessels of their own country ; 
they are generally charged with the duty of investigat¬ 
ing shipwrecks and saving property from the wrecked 
or stranded vessels, with all disputes between cap¬ 
tains and sailors, with arresting deserters, and with 
sending back shipwrecked or discharged seamen. In 
time of war their duties in these respects are still more 
important, for they are obliged, so far as either in¬ 
ternational law, special treaties, or the laws of the 
country will permit them, to protect at all hazard 
the commercial and naval interests of their country 
against arbitrary acts, whether committed by the 
country to which they are sent or by the nation at war 
with it. On the death of one of their countrymen 
they, in general, take possession of his effects, and in 
case of property left in the country, manage, keep, and 
dispose of it for the benefit of the heirs. They are 
authorized, besides, to perform notarial duties of all 
kinds, and in most cases they are the only authorities 
who can validate legal instruments between citizens of 
their country or others to be used at home. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


49 


In addition to the general duties of a consul va¬ 
rious special duties are imposed on American consuls 
by our tariff system, which do not generally exist in 
the services of other countries. It is necessary for 
our consuls to verify in triplicate every invoice of 
goods sent to the United States. Not only is the 
consul obliged to take the oath or statement of the 
manufacturer or exporter, but he is expected to have a 
special knowledge of the trade of the place and of the 
actual value of the goods, so that he can control the 
statements made to him ; for our system does not ac¬ 
cept the valuations of goods always at the actual price 
paid for them, but at the market value of the place 
where they are manufactured or chiefly sold. The 
consul is in many cases expected to have in his office 
samples of the merchandise generally shipped, and to 
be in a position to discover any undervaluation, fraud, 
or collusion. These duties are by no means light ones. 
In a large commercial centre many thousand invoices 
are signed every year. For each of these he must ap¬ 
pose his signature in triplicate to two papers, with his 
official seal, must fasten the papers together in such a 
way as to prevent fraud, and in case of depreciation 
of currency must add still another certificate as to the 
value of money. Of these triplicate invoices one is 
given to the shipper, one is retained in the consulate 
as proof, and the third is sent to the collector of the 
port to which the goods are forwarded, marked also 


So 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


in an explanatory list. This is not all. The consul 
must keep an accurate register of all these invoices, 
with date, number, fee, and the value of the goods, 
called an “ Invoice Book ; ” he must keep another 
separate register of fees, and, in some cases still a third. 
While each invoice imposes on the consul such a 
duty, the amount of fees received, in general $2.50 for 
each invoice, does not in all cases correctly show the 
value of the commerce or the importance of the 
consulate ; for while in many places there is a very 
great number of small invoices, in others whole car¬ 
goes are sent under a single invoice, and the amount 
of fees taken in is, therefore, no exact measure of the 
importance of the consul’s services to the Treasury. 
Besides this, in certain cases he is bound to take no¬ 
tice and prepare official papers with regard to the im¬ 
ports from the United States to the place where he is 
stationed; for certain articles, such as petroleum 
casks, shooks, or pieces of wood used for orange-boxes, 
and grain bags, are allowed to return free to the United 
States on proof of their once being exported thence. 

Besides keeping a number of official records, regis¬ 
ters, and fee-books, carrying on his ordinary corre¬ 
spondence with the Department of State, in carefully 
prescribed forms, relating to the business of his office, 
and reporting anything of interest of a commercial na¬ 
ture to the Government, the consul is obliged to make 
quarterly, semi-annual, and annual returns both to the 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


51 


State Department and to the Treasury. He must, 
for instance, at the end of each quarter, give a digest 
of the invoices verified by him during that period, a 
record of the arrivals and departures of American ves¬ 
sels—a return nowadays exceedingly simple—a reg¬ 
ister of deceased American citizens, a record of his 
notarial services or unofficial fees, a summary of the 
whole consular business, and, in case the consul has 
extra-territorial jurisdiction, a return of the business of 
the consular court, and also a record of his official fees. 
The semi-annual and annual returns embrace besides 
that a list of passports issued or visaed, a list of persons 
to whom protection may have been given in non-Chris¬ 
tian countries, reports of the estates of deceased citi¬ 
zens, names of persons married in the consulate, a cor¬ 
rect list of fees received, a list of despatches written 
to the Department during the year, a list of marriages 
of American citizens within his jurisdiction, and a 
register of American residents. He must send to the 
Treasury, at the end of every quarter, a record of the 
Treasury fees, to which he is obliged to take an oath 
before some magistrate, for, although a person of confi¬ 
dence, his word or official statement is not believed by 
the Treasury without an oath; a list of seamen shipped, 
discharged, or deceased at the consulate ; a statement of 
all relief given to seamen ; a summary of consular busi¬ 
ness ; and three other reports, relative to seamen, extra 
wages, and hospital dues. He must send also to the 


52 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


Treasury an account current of the receipts and expen¬ 
ditures of the consulate; and his salary account, in all 
cases in duplicate and accompanied by various certifi¬ 
cates and vouchers. His account for rent and miscel¬ 
laneous expenses goes not to the Treasury but to the 
Department of State. The consular accounts, after 
passing through the Bureau of Accounts at the De¬ 
partment of State, are, with marks of approval or dis¬ 
approval, forwarded to the Fifth Auditor of the Treas¬ 
ury Department, where they are subjected to a careful 
examination, the least error or overcharge of any kind 
being noted, and are then passed on to the First 
Comptroller of the Treasury, who finally decides 
whether they are to be admitted. Although nearly 
all other officers of the Government may receive their 
pay at the expiration of every month, a consul can¬ 
not be paid before the termination of his quarter, 
and he may then, in case he has not received of¬ 
ficial fees sufficient, draw upon the Secretary of the 
Treasury for the amount due him. It is a little diffi¬ 
cult to see what other system could be adopted, al¬ 
though diplomatic officials draw, not on the Secretary 
of the Treasury, but on an account opened to their 
credit with the bankers of the State Department in 
London. The system of drawing drafts on the Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury perhaps prevents loss to the 
Government in one way; but as in very many cases 
in drawing upon the United States there is a loss 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


53 


on exchange, this loss, in some cases a large one, falls 
fortunately on the Government and not on the consul. 
This makes an addition to the general estimates, and 
is especially provided for in the appropriations. At 
the same time a consul who, although his duties may 
be very important to the interests of the Government, 
verifies few invoices, and therefore receives few fees, 
is, unless he has private means, obliged to live upon 
credit for the first three months after his arrival at his 
post, and even then may sometimes find it difficult to 
meet with a banker or merchant willing to cash his 
drafts at any moderate rate. 

In shipping-ports consuls of the United States have 
to inspect the manifests of vessels leaving for the 
United States, to see that they are in accordance with 
the tariff laws. They must send frequent reports as 
to the state of health in their district, especially if 
there be any epidemic disease ; must inspect vessels in 
such cases, and issue or countersign bills of health. 
They must prevent, by every means in their power, the 
shipment of paupers or criminals as emigrants to the 
United States, and promptly report such cases ; must 
in like way obstruct the emigration of Mormon con¬ 
verts, and must report all violations of the passenger 
laws. Consuls must report, besides, all new inventions 
and discoveries, all improvements in agriculture and 
manufactures, all information relative to new light¬ 
houses, buoys, beacons and shoals, and must be vigi- 


54 


A MER1CA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


lant with regard to the importation of neat cattle and 
hides, as well as of rags, lest disease may be introduced 
into the United States. 

Consuls are obliged to send annual reports through 
the Consul-General, containing full statistics and state¬ 
ments respecting the trade and navigation in their 
districts, arranged in tabulated forms, and from these 
each Consul-General must send 

“ in duplicate, each year, a full report upon the trade and in¬ 
dustry of the country under his supervision, arranged and 
systematized so as to show, ist, its agriculture ; 2d, its manu¬ 
factures ; 3d, the condition of its mines ; 4th, its fisheries ; 
5th, the products of its forests ; 6th, its commerce, showing (a) 
the number of vessels, domestic and foreign, entered and 
cleared, and the amount of tonnage, (£) the amount and value 
of imports and duties thereon, (c) the amount and value of 
exports, (d) its trade with the United States ; 7th, its revenues, 
separating customs from other sources of revenue ; 8th, such 
miscellaneous subjects as may appear of importance, such as 
new commercial treaties, statements of population, emigration, 
price of food, wages of labor, conditions of the people, pe¬ 
culiarities in business and habits, and all points of interest that 
may serve to further American trade and general information. 

“ All consuls will transmit, as soon as they are published, 
statements of all changes in the commercial systems of the 
governments to which they are accredited, copies of all com¬ 
mercial treaties, regulations, light-house notices, revenue laws, 
acts and regulations respecting warehouses, tonnage duties, 
and port dues ; all tariffs and modifications thereof, and all 
enactments, decrees, royal orders, or proclamations which in 
any manner affect the commercial, agricultural, mining, or 
other important interests of the United States. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


55 


“The trade reports of consular officers should specify the 
articles of import and export, the countries which supply the 
former and receive the latter, the comparative increase or 
decrease in the amounts of the same, and the causes in both 
cases for either ; the general regulations of trade and their 
effects, the average market prices within the year of the staples 
of export, and the average rates or freight to the United States. 
They should also designate the articles, if any, prohibited from 
importation into their consular districts, whether from the 
place of their growth or production or from other places, speci¬ 
fying what changes have occurred since their last reports ; and 
also all privileges or restrictions thereon, if any, and to what 
vessels and in what manner they apply, and all differences in 
duties on articles imported in foreign or national vessels ; all 
tonnage duties and other port dues, and all port, warehouse, 
and sanitary regulations, and those relating to entry and clear¬ 
ance, where such exist and have been modified or enlarged 
since their last reports. They should also communicate de¬ 
tailed information in regard to the employment in their con¬ 
sular districts of the capital, if any, of citizens of the United 
States, whether employed in industrial, agricultural, scientific, 
or commercial pursuits. They should also transmit tabular 
or other statements touching the consumption of the products 
of the United States as well as of other countries ; the amount 
of these articles imported into their districts in American 
vessels, and the amount of foreign tonnage employed in the 
trade. 

“ Consular officers should from time to time communicate 
any useful and interesting information relating to agriculture, 
manufactures, labor, wages, population, and public works. 
In all that relates to scientific discoveries, to progress in the 
useful arts, and to general statistics in foreign countries, they 
should communicate freely and frequently with the Depart¬ 
ment. They should be careful to note all events occurring 


5<5 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


within their several districts which affect, favorably or other¬ 
wise, the navigation and commerce of the United States ; the 
establishment of new branches of industry, the increase or 
decline of those before established, and the demands for new 
articles of the products or manufactures of the United States. 
They should also promptly advise the Department in all mat¬ 
ters calculated to benefit our commerce or other interests, and 
as to all means for removing any impediments that obstruct 
their development. 

“Consular officers will transmit, quarterly, information on 
the following points to the Secretary of State, not only in 
reference to the trade of the place of their residence, but that 
of the neighboring country or towns with which it may be con¬ 
nected commercially, or through which their merchandise may 
be shipped to the United States : ist. The usual terms on 
which merchandise is bought and sold, whether on credit or 
for cash. The usual discounts allowed, either from custom or 
in consideration of cash payment, or from other cause ; whether 
such discounts are uniform, and, if not, whether they vary in 
the same, or only on different descriptions of merchandise ; 
and whether such discounts, or any of them, are regarded as 
a bonus or gratuity to the buyer for his benefit; whether he 
purchases for himself or ships merchandise to order and for 
account of others. 2d. The bounties allowed on articles ex¬ 
ported, and for what reason, and under what circumstances ; 
whether they are the same on exports by national or foreign 
vessels ; if not, the difference ; the rates of such bounties, and 
how estimated, whether on weight, measure, gauge, price, or 
value. 3d. The customary charge of commissions for pur¬ 
chasing and shipping goods of different descriptions ; the usual 
brokerage on the purchase or sale of merchandise ; whether 
it is paid by the buyer or seller, or by both. 4th. The usual 
and customary expenses in detail attending the purchase and 
shipment of merchandise, including commissions, brokerage* 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


57 


export duty, dock, trade, or city dues, lighterage, porterage, 
labor, cost of packages, covering or embaling, cooperage, 
gauging, weighing, wharfage, and local imposts or taxes of 
any kind ; which of the foregoing, or other items, are usually 
included in the price of the article, or become a separate charge 
to be paid by the shipper or purchaser. 

“ In the case of merchandise purchased at the interior places, 
or in other countries having no shipping ports of their own, 
for shipment to foreign countries, through the ports of the 
consulate, consuls will report the customary expenses attend¬ 
ing the transportation from such interior places or countries 
to the port of shipment, including all transits, exports, or im¬ 
port frontier duty, and every other charge up to the arrival at 
such port, and the ordinary expenses attending the shipment 
thereof. 

“The duties of consular officers in respect to the develop¬ 
ment of trade with the United States are of special interest 
and importance. The condition of the products and manufac¬ 
tures of this country is such that very many articles of growth 
and manufacture can be exported in largely increased quan¬ 
tities, and the Department of State has taken particular inter¬ 
est in all efforts and measures for the promotion of our export 
trade. The agency of consular officers in this direction is of 
the highest value, and their efficient services hitherto have met 
with deserved recognition. It is expected that they should 
devote special attention to the methods by which trade with 
the United States can be most effectively fostered and en¬ 
larged, and by which new branches of industry can be intro¬ 
duced within their districts. To this end they should from 
time to time advise the Department of the demand for differ¬ 
ent kinds of products and manufactured articles, and whether 
they are of the character which it is probable the industries of 
the United States can supply ; and also of any products of the 
country in which trade with the United States may be acquired 


58 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


or increased, either by legislation, executive action, or by 
commercial enterprise.” * 

I have preferred to quote the exact text of the 
“ Consular Regulations,” as further condensation 
seems difficult. Reports of a similar character have 
to be made also to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

“ It is the duty of every consular officer to furnish to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, as often as shall be required, the 
prices-current of all articles of merchandise usually exported 
to the United States from the port or place in which he shall 
be located. They are also requested to transmit, at least once 
a month, if opportunity offers, to the Secretary of State and to 
the Comptroller of the Treasury, the rates of exchange, and 
also a statement of the rates at which any depreciated currency 
of the country in which they reside is computed in United 
States or Spanish dollars, or in silver or gold coins of other 
countries, observing in all cases of an estimate of the value of 
the currency in such foreign coins that their weight and stand¬ 
ard should be made known to the Department. 

II Consular officers will also report monthly to the Treasury 
Department the rates of exchange prevailing between the 
ports or places at which they reside and the following places, 
to wit, London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Hamburg ; also New 
York and other principal ports in the United States ; and they 
will keep the Department regularly and fully advised of the 
course and progress of trade from the several ports of their 
consulates to the United States. 

“ Consular officers will forward regularly, and as often as 
practicable, directly to the general appraisers residing at New 
York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and San Francisco, 
such prices-current, manufacturers’ statements of prices, or 


* United States Consular Regulation, par. 556, 559-563. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM . 


59 


merchants’ printed circulars of prices, and such other general 
information as may be useful to appraisers in the discharge of 
their duties. They will include in their several reports, in 
detail, information on any other points which they may think 
proper, in order to an ascertainment of the value of merchan¬ 
dise forwarded to the United States, and the assessment of 
the legal duties, forwarding any printed or other documents 
which they may think desirable that the Department should 
possess.” * 

The relations of consuls to the Treasury have sev- 
eral times led that Department to claim a jurisdiction 
over the consular system. In 1872, Mr. Keim, who 
had been sent out as a Treasury agent for the exam¬ 
ination of consular affairs, recommended the with¬ 
drawal of all control over consular officers from the 
State Department and its transfer to the Treasury, 
and even prepared a bill for that purpose. Many of 
his judgments and minor suggestions were very sensi- 
ble.f 

But besides all these purely commercial and cleri¬ 
cal duties, consuls have, in non-Christian countries, 
where it would be unsafe to leave the lives and the 
property of foreigners to the discretion of a native 
tribunal, a civil and criminal jurisdiction, which it is 
necessary to explain in some detail. 

After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks 

* U. S. Consular Regulations, 57 i~ 573 - 

fA Report to the Hon. George S. Boutwell, Secretary of 
the Treasury, upon the Condition of the Consular Service. 

1872. 


Co 


AMERICA N DIRE OMA C Y. 


iii 1453, owing to the ignorance of Christian usages, 
and because it was found more convenient that the 
Christians should in a measure govern themselves, and 
that their governors should be held responsible for 
their conduct, various privileges of self-government 
were granted to the native Christians. Genoa and 
Venice having at that time mercantile establishments 
on the Bosphorus, such privileges were extended also 
to them. Subsequently, by a treaty made in 1535 
between King Francis I. and the Sultan Suleiman 
I., similar privileges were given to the French, and 
through them to all the Franks. These privileges 
were subsequently enlarged and confirmed, especially 
by the treaty of Mahmud I. with Louis XV., in 1740, 
which is the basis of all the present arrangements. 
The English, from whom we in part derived our 
rights, secured their privileges by a treaty in 1675 be^ 
tween Mahmud IV. and Charles II. Other nations 
gradually followed these examples. 

These privileges are in general called Capitulations ; 
not in the sense now usual of a surrender of right, for 
they were a free grant, but in the old sense of an 
agreement under heads and articles, “ Capitula.” The 
word was not unusual in such a sense in old French 
treaties and conventions, for we read of a “ Capitula¬ 
tion and contract of marriage ” between Dom Pedro 
of Portugal and the Princess Marie of Savoy. The 
basis of these privileges was what is now commonly 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 61 

termed Extra-territoriality, that is, that the citizens 
and subjects of foreign powers shall between them¬ 
selves have the same rights and privileges, especially 
in the settlement of their disputes, as though they 
were in their own country; and that this distinction 
shall be so far observed in case of criminal procedure, 
where they have offended the laws of the land or have 
disputes with the subjects of the country, that they 
shall not be treated differently ( i.e ., more unfavor¬ 
ably) from the subjects of the country, and shall al¬ 
ways have the protection of their representatives to 
see that absolute justice is done. 

The United States acquired these rights of extra¬ 
territoriality partly from having enjoyed them while 
still British colonies, but mainly from our treaty con¬ 
cluded with Turkey in 1830. By the first article it 
was agreed that the merchants of both countries 
should be placed on an equality with those of all 
powers in the country respectively; and by the fourth 
article it was agreed that, 

“ If litigations and disputes should arise between the sub¬ 
jects of the supreme power and citizens of the United States, 
the parties shall not be held, nor shall judgment be pro¬ 
nounced unless the American dragoman be present. Citizens 
of the United States of America, even when they may have 
committed some offence, shall not be arrested and put in prison 
by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their min¬ 
ister or consul, and punished according to their offence, fol¬ 
lowing in this respect the usage observed toward other Franks.” 


62 


A MER1CA N DIPL OMA C V. 


A dispute arose between Turkey and the United 
States as to the proper meaning of this article. As 
several of the treaties between Turkey and foreign 
powers permitted foreign subjects to be tried by a 
mixed court, or even by a Turkish court in the pres¬ 
ence of a foreign representative, the Porte held that 
the United States should conform to this. The 
Turks also insisted that our translation of the treaty 
was incorrect; and it seems that Captain Porter, our 
first minister at Constantinople, had signed an agree¬ 
ment by which he recognized the Turkish text of the 
treaty as the binding one. They said that the phrase 
“ they shall not be arrested and put into prison by the 
local authorities, but they shall be tried by their min¬ 
ister or consul,” was not in the original treaty. Our 
Government maintained the contrary view; and a 
number of independent translations from the text of 
the original proved that we were in the right. In 
addition to this, similar stipulations to those of this 
fourth article had been put in the Turkish treaties 
with Greece, the ITanse Towns, Belgium, Portugal, 
and Sweden. We, therefore, insisted on our interpre¬ 
tation, and the result was that in one or two cases per¬ 
sons escaped trial. Both Governments still maintain 
their ground, and this dispute has never been settled. 

1 he United States have similar treaties granting - 
extra-territorial rights with Borneo, China, Japan, 
Madagascar, Morocco, Muscat, Persia, Samoa, Siam, 


OUK CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


63 


and Tripoli; that is, in general with all non-Christian 
countries. We have treaties of the same nature with 
Algeria and Tunis, but these countries being now 
occupied by France, and we having agreed to give up 
our extra-territorial rights since the establishment of 
fair tribunals, they are no longer of effect. There was 
for a long time a question whether these rights existed 
in Roumania. As to Serbia there was no doubt. But 
in both these countries such rights have been given 
up through the conclusion of consular treaties. Many 
of these treaties for jurisdiction are far more full and 
explicit than our treaty with Turkey. 

There was, however, no law of Congress permitting 
the exercise by consuls of these powers conferred by 
treaty until the act of August 11, 1848, which was 
subsequently extended and amended by those of June 
22, i860, and July 1, 1870. By these laws consuls 
are authorized to arraign and try all citizens of the 
United States charged with offences committed in 
such countries, to sentence them to fine, imprison¬ 
ment, and even death, and to execute such sentences. 
They have authority also to try and determine all 
civil causes arising between citizens of the United 
States, or between Americans and other foreigners, 
sitting in some cases alone, and in others with asses¬ 
sors. They are given many other judicial powers, in¬ 
cluding marriage, divorce, the custody of property, 
the probate of wills, etc. Similar powers are vested 


6 4 


A MERIC A A r DIPL OMA C i '. 


in ministers, who can also hear appeals from the con¬ 
sular courts ; and it is only in Japan and China, when 
the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand five hun¬ 
dred dollars, that there can be a further appeal to the 
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of 
California. These courts are governed by the laws of 
the United States, but as the Federal legislation will 
by no means cover all the questions presented, the 
common law and the provisions of equity and admir¬ 
alty have been extended to supplement it. Different 
regulations for procedure have been drawn up in the 
different countries, and our whole system is in a con¬ 
fused and contradictory condition, by no means fur¬ 
nishing the same safeguards for the administration of 
justice as are afforded by the French, English, or Ital¬ 
ian systems. The English have regularly constituted 
courts, both of original and appellate jurisdiction, and 
jury trial, whenever possible, in criminal cases. The 
French have besides, an appeal to the court of Aix in 
Provence, the judgment of which may be again re¬ 
viewed by the Cour de Cassation. 

Some recent cases of failure of justice, and espe¬ 
cially two trials, one in Japan and one in Egypt, 
where men were condemned to death, without a jury, 
under peculiar circumstances, drew public attention 
to the defects of our legislation. A report was made 
on the subject by the Secretary of State in 1882, and 
an excellent and carefully drafted bill for the reorgan- 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


65 


ization of the whole system of consular courts was 
passed by the Senate, mainly through the efforts of 
Mr. Pendleton, who devoted to the subject much 
care and attention. This bill failed to pass in the 
House of Representatives at the last session (1884-85), 
chiefly because it provided for a number of new ap¬ 
pointments, which the dominant party did not wish 
to have made by a Republican administration; no 
one seemed to read it through and to notice that it was 
only to take effect six months after a code of practice 
had been prepared by the Secretary of State and the 
Attorney-General, and had been approved by the 
President. This bill provided, in brief, for the reor¬ 
ganization and limitation of the consular courts, for 
the establishment of district courts, and of a supreme 
court, in China and Japan, and for a right of appeal 
in other countries to the Supreme Court in Japan, or 
to the United States Court for the Eastern District of 
New York. In order to supply proper clerks, the 
number of consular clerks was increased to twenty- 
five. Measures were taken for the introduction of 
the jury system, and sentences of death must be ap¬ 
proved by the President. 

The need of some such reform is urgent, and Presi¬ 
dent Cleveland directed the attention of Congress to 
it again, in his message of December 8, 1885A 

* The whole subject of consular jurisdiction is set forth in 
Lawrence’s Commeniaire sur Wheaton , vol. iv. See also the 
5 


66 


A MER1CA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


Of course, not all consuls have to perform all the 
duties which have just been enumerated. The cir¬ 
cumstances of each post are different. The following 
examples will, however, show that the work of con¬ 
sular officers has not been exaggerated. Take, for in¬ 
stance, the duties of the Consul-General at Shanghai. 

u ist. He has supervisory control over all consulates in 
China. 2d. Because of the distance from the legation at Pe¬ 
king, the insufficient means of communication, especially in 
winter, and the peculiar powers of the local government, he 
has often important semi-diplomatic duties to perform, requir¬ 
ing delicacy and tact. 3d. With the other consular represen¬ 
tatives he participates in the municipal government of the 
foreign settlement with a very considerable population, and 
containing much valuable property, both real and personal. 
4th. He is a judge trying civil causes in which Americans are 
defendants, and trying them for crimes sometimes carrying 
the extreme penalty of the law. He also has charge of the jail 
in which American prisoners are confined. In his judicial 
capacity he is judge of a criminal court, of a court of probate 
and divorce, of an equity and of a nisi-prius court. 5th. He 
is United States postmaster, handling all the mails arriving at 
Shanghai for citizens of this country, either officials or private 
individuals. 6th. He performs the duties of a seaport consu¬ 
late, viz., has care of American shipping, guarding the interests 
of master, crew, and owners ; he protects the revenue of his 

Letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen to Senator Windom, of April 29, 
1882, Senate Mis. Doc., No. 89, 47th Congress, 1st Session ; 
and especially, for the Turkish Capitulations, the excellent re¬ 
port of Mr. Edward A. Vandyck, Senate Ex. Doc., No. 3, 
Special Session (1881), and Senate Ex. Doc., No. 87,47th Con¬ 
gress, 1st Session. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


67 


Government and watches and strives to increase the export 
trade.” * 

At Matamoras the Consul-General, in addition to 
the ordinary consular duties, has to try to prevent 
smuggling along the line of the Rio Grande, and 
therefore to exercise a supervision of the bonded im¬ 
ports, and to maintain local diplomatic relations in 
order to secure mutual good-will, and the better en¬ 
forcement of the laws on the frontier. His subordin¬ 
ates to the north have to watch not only smuggling, 
but the movements of the Indians, and to report 
promptly on this subject. The work of the Consul- 
General at Matamoras, like that of most of the con¬ 
suls in Mexico, has greatly increased during the last 
few years, owing to the millions of American capital 
now invested in Mexico, and to the number of Ameri¬ 
can citizens resident there. It is necessary to protect 
American interests not only by watching against any 
injustice to them, but by giving reasonable aid and 
advice to persons intending to engage in Mexican 
enterprises. The persons of Americans have to be 
protected, unfortunately too frequently, from the sus¬ 
picious and ignorant local authorities, who arrest and 
imprison them on very slight pretexts. To accom¬ 
plish this the consular officer at Matamoras should 
have a good knowledge of international law, and the 

* Report of the Secretary of State, April 26, 1884, H. R. 
Ex. Doc., No. 146, 48th Congress, 1st Session. 


68 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


rules of extradition, as well as of the municipal law of 
the United States, Mexico, and of the State of Texas. 
And all this is expected for an annual salary of $2,000, 
and an allowance of $400, for office rent! 

At Palermo, a city of over two hundred thousand 
inhabitants, our consul receives a salary of $2,000, with 
an allowance of $400 for rent and $400 for clerk hire. 
The fees of the office in the fiscal year of 1883-84, 
amounted to over eleven thousand dollars, which, with 
the exception of $839, for ships’ paper, etc., and $214 
for miscellaneous, was all for the verification of invoices, 
of which there were nearly four thousand, averaging 
about thirty a day during the busy season. The ex¬ 
ports, which amount to about five million dollars, con¬ 
sist chiefly of oranges and lemons, with a considerable 
amount of sulphur, salt, and wine. Here the work of 
the consul is especially difficult, because the small 
dealers frequently combine to send one large instead 
of several smaller invoices—a practice forbidden by 
our revenue laws ; and owing to the system of secrecy 
and terrorism prevalent in business circles in Sicily, 
and to the refusal to give information, it is very hard 
to ascertain and prevent this. The four agencies of 
the consulate, at Carini, Girgenti, Marsala, and 
Trapani, cause additional labor, and a single case of 
injustice, or of a dispute between master and men of 
an American vessel in any of these ports, has required 
a journey and the loss of several days to adjust. Dur- 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


69 


ing the last two years the consul has had to be very 
vigilant with regard to bills of health, lest cholera 
might be imported into America. In 1884 there were 
two hundred and twenty-eight American travellers 
who visited the consulate (and the number is yearly 
increasing); that is, more than one a day during the 
travelling season ; and as brigandage is still of occa¬ 
sional occurrence, and a passport law is at times en¬ 
forced to hinder emigration, each of these travellers 
required a certain amount of attention. The frequent 
visits of American ships-of-war add greatly to the 
consul’s social duties, as well as to his actual official 
work, for he must then receive the mail for these ships 
and take measures to arrest deserters. His British 
colleague, who has no duties with regard to invoices, 
has a salary of $3,000, allowances to the amount of 
$1,000, and a paid vice-consul as well as clerks. 

Consular officers are allowed by international law 
in general, and by special treaties with most coun¬ 
tries, except England, certain privileges ; for example, 
the inviolability of the archives and papers of the 
consulate, as well as of the consular office and dwell¬ 
ing ; freedom from arrest; exemption from any obliga¬ 
tion to appear as a witness—a consul’s testimony 
being usually taken at his office ; exemption from tax¬ 
ation, from the quartering of soldiers, from military 
or other public service ; the privilege of corresponding 
with the local authorities in case of infraction of 


7 o 


A MERIC A X DIPL OMA C i 


treaties; the use of the national arms and flag on 
offices and dwellings; the power of taking deposi¬ 
tions ; jurisdiction over disputes between masters, 
officers, and crews of commercial ships; the right to 
reclaim deserters; the power to adjust damages suf¬ 
fered at sea and in matters of wrecks and salvage ; 
the power of administering the estates of deceased 
fellow-citizens; the right of applying for the extradi¬ 
tion of fugitive criminals. I have excepted England 
in order to mark a noteworthy fact, that the English 
government, while willing, under the “ most-favored- 
nation ” clause, to accept all privileges and immuni¬ 
ties given in such matters to the consuls of the most 
favored nation in other countries, has never been 
willing to make a special consular treaty, on the 
ground that Parliament has never conferred upon the 
government the authority to make such a treaty, 
and that a special act of Parliament would be neces¬ 
sary to except foreign consuls from British jurisdic¬ 
tion. Promises have been made to most countries at 
various times that a bill to this effect would speedily 
be introduced into Parliament ; but the proper or 
convenient time has never seemed to come. Foreign 
consuls, therefore, in Great Britain, are treated 
exactly as British subjects, and have no privileges 
whatever except such as the courtesy of the Foreign 
Office and of the Board of Trade chooses temporarily 
to permit them. It required even a strong represen- 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


7 I 


tation to the British government to secure American 
consuls from paying an income tax to the British 
treasury on their official salaries. The property and 
archives of the French Consulate-General at Lon¬ 
don were at one time sold at public auction for a 
house tax which had not been paid by the propri¬ 
etor of the house which contained the consular office. 
At Manchester, in 1857, the consular archives were 
seized for a debt of the American consul, who was 
absent at the time, and Mr. Dallas, the American 
minister, paid the amount claimed in order to avoid 
a sale. 

With all the duties which have been enumerated, 
and with their corresponding privileges, we may 
easily see what should be the qualifications of a con¬ 
sular officer. Allow me to quote in this connection 
the words of Prince Talleyrand in speaking of Count 
Reinhard, who, after having been French Minister 
Plenipotentiary at Hamburg and Florence, subse¬ 
quently filled the office of Consul-General at Milan, 
of Commissary General of Commercial Relations in 
Moldavia, and again of Minister at Cassel, Frankfort, 
and at Dresden. He said : 

“ After having been a skilful minister how many things one 
has to know besides to be a good consul ; for the duties of a 
consul are infinitely varied. They are of a kind very different 
from those of other agents of foreign affairs ; they demand a 
mass of practical knowledge for which a special education is 
necessary.” 


7 2 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


Under our existing laws no qualifications whatever 
are required except the good-will of the appointing 
power. It is not even necessary to know how to 
write good English. Let us see for a moment what 
is required in other countries. According to existing 
regulations any one appointed to the British consular 
service must be subjected to an examination showing 
that he has an accurate knowledge of the English 
language; that he can write and speak French cor¬ 
rectly and fluently, that he has a sufficient knowledge 
of the current language, as far as commerce is con¬ 
cerned, at the port to which he is to be appointed to 
reside, so as to enable him to communicate directly 
with the authorities and natives of the place, a knowl¬ 
edge of the German language being taken to meet 
this requirement for the ports of Northern Europe, 
of the Spanish or Portuguese language, as may be 
determined, for ports in Spain, Portugal, Mexico, 
Central and South America, and of the Italian lan¬ 
guage for the ports in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, 
and the Black Sea and Mediterranean ; a sufficient 
knowledge of British mercantile and commercial law 
to enable him to deal with questions arising between 
British shipowners and shipmasters and seamen ; a 
sufficient knowledge of arithmetic for the nature of 
the duties which he will be required to perform in 
drawing up commercial tables and reports. He is 
also required, if practicable, to remain in the Foreign 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


73 


Office for at least three months, to become acquainted 
with the forms of business as carried on there. These 
are only the scholastic qualifications, and he should 
possess, in addition, various special qualifications and 
attainments. He should be courteous and prudent, 
free from passion, and firm without prejudice, with a 
well-balanced mind, versed in the law of nations, and 
should, subsequently, make himself thoroughly ac¬ 
quainted with the laws, municipal ordinances, and 
tariffs of the place to which he is appointed.* 

The requirements in France for admission to the 
consular service are that the candidate must be French, 
between twenty and twenty-five years of age; must 
have a diploma as bachelor of arts, science, or laws, 
or must have graduated at the Ecole des Chartes, the 
Superior Normal School, the Polytechnic School, the 
School of Mines, the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees, the 
School of Arts and Manufactures, the School of 
Forestry, or at the Special Military School, or the 
Naval School ; or must hold the commission of an 
officer in the active army or navy. He must then 
pass an examination on : i, The constitutional, judi¬ 
cial, and administrative organization of France and of 
foreign countries; 2, general principles of public and 

* Specimens of the English examination papers for the Con¬ 
sular and Diplomatic Services and the Foreign Office are printed 
at the end of the Foreign Office List, and show the thorough 
nature of the test. 


74 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


private international law; 3, commercial and mari¬ 
time law; 4, the history of treaties from the Con¬ 
gress of Westphalia to the Congress of Berlin, and 
political and commercial geography; 5, the elements 
of political economy ; 6, in English or German. The 
examination is both written and oral, and includes the 
writing of a thesis. After three years’ service either 
in the Foreign Office or abroad, the candidate must 
pass another examination, both written and oral; if 
for the diplomatic career, in English, German, and 
contemporary diplomatic history ; if for the consular 
career, in English, German, or Spanish, commercial 
geography, and the customs legislation of France and 
other countries. On passing this examination he is 
appointed either Third Secretary of Legation or As¬ 
sistant Consul (Consul Suppleant).* 

The Belgian, the Italian, and indeed the systems 
of nearly all nations require special examinations and 
special knowledge on the part of persons appointed to 
consular posts. In most cases these begin at the very 
bottom of the ladder as clerks, or even consular pupils, 
and are only promoted after years of service and ex¬ 
perience. The Austrian consular service in the East is 
remarkably good, and in that nearly every member has 
passed through the school for Oriental languages at Vi- 

* The most recent French regulations will be found in the 
Appendix to vol. ii. of the Cours de Droit diplomatique of 
P. Pradier-Fodere. Paris, 1881. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


75 

enna, and knows two or three of the languages spoken 
in the country to which he is sent, always Turkish, 
generally Greek, and sometimes Persian in addition. 

There are three other important qualifications—of 
a negative character—for a good consul, which the 
actual experience of all nations has shown to be very 
necessary. Consuls should not be merchants ; they 
should not be unpaid ; and they should not be sub¬ 
jects, or even natives, of the country where they offi¬ 
cially reside. 

At the beginning of our Government we, like most 
other nations, started by appointing unpaid consuls 
from among American merchants resident abroad ; or, 
if they were sent from America, by allowing them 
to enter into business as an equivalent for salary. 
This was found to work badly ; and even as far back 
as 1816, the State Department proposed to Congress 
to pay the more important consular officers in Europe 
fixed salaries. No change of any importance was 
made, however, for many years. The consuls received 
the fees of their office, and in places where there was 
much to do these fees amounted to a large sum. In 
the consular reorganization in 1856, fixed salaries were 
given to a large number of consuls, while others were 
allowed to retain, in lieu of salaries, the fees of their 
offices. This having given rise to abuses, the fees in 
certain places amounting to $10,000, $25,000, and even 
higher, a law was passed requiring consuls to account 


76 


AMERICAN DIPLOMA C ) 


for all their fees to the Treasury, retaining not more 
than $2,500. Where there were consular agents a 
certain additional sum was allowed from the receipts 
of each agent, besides the payments of the agent him¬ 
self. Thus the matter stands now. Some consuls 
receive a salary, others receive their salaries by means 
of fees. One objection to the fee system is that while 
the feed consul is perhaps more careful of the busi¬ 
ness of his office, in order to receive his pay, the fees 
are oppressive upon commerce and navigation. In 
order to guard against the latter, a law has recently 
been passed remitting all fees upon navigation, al¬ 
though a round-about system has been adopted, by 
which the fees are charged against the Treasury, so 
that an account of them is taken. As far as trade it¬ 
self is concerned, the Protectionists seem to approve 
of the exactions of fees, because it adds so much more 
to the cost of imported goods. The general tendency 
in our Government has been, where the fees of a con¬ 
sulate amount regularly to more than three thou¬ 
sand dollars, to fix a salary for the post. There is one 
bad result from estimating the importance of a con¬ 
sulate in this way. The more agreeable places are as 
a rule better paid ; and disagreeable and unhealthy 
posts, where few fees are taken, but where the protec¬ 
tion given to Americans is worth far more to us as a 
nation, than a saving in the collection of duties, are 
left with trifling fees. Other countries which have 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


77 


carefully studied the needs of the consular service, 
and the use which this service is of to the merchants 
of the country, have, for the most part, adopted the 
system of salaried consulates. 

When the consul is a merchant, he is more apt to 
look out for his own interests than either for the in¬ 
terests of the Government or for those of his fellow- 
citizens for whose protection he is appointed. He is 
likely to be engaged in that business which has the 
chief export trade to the United States; and as con¬ 
sul he has the power of becoming acquainted with 
the trade of other merchants exporting similar goods. 
In that way he generally uses his consular position 
and the knowledge derived in consequence of it, to 
benefit his own business, sometimes to the detriment 
of his countrymen who have embarked in similar en¬ 
terprises. In 1884 the Secretary of State made a re¬ 
port to Congress on consular matters, and took strong 
grounds against the use of merchants as consuls.* 
Our laws have now so far forbidden this practice that 
it is only in the small posts where the fees are not 
enough to pay the salary of a consul that it is al¬ 
lowed. The English consular service was reorgan¬ 
ized by Mr. Canning, when Foreign Minister, in 
1825; and the more important consulates were 
filled by persons sent especially from England for 
that purpose. In 1835, an economically disposed 

* H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 121, 48th Congress, 1st Session. 


73 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


Parliament wishing to return to the old system, an 
inquiry was made, and the evidence was taken cf 
many consuls, and of many persons formerly consuls, 
as well as of the leading merchants and chambers of 
commerce. The evidence was very strong against 
the practice of allowing consuls to engage in trade ; 
and Mr. Canning’s system was therefore retained. 
Similar inquiries were made by Belgium not many 
years ago, with the result that the privilege of en¬ 
gaging in trade was taken away from the chief con¬ 
sulates. This has worked so well that there is not 
the slightest disposition to return to the old system. 
Nevertheless, an opinion seems to be gaining ground 
in this country that it would be greatly to the inter¬ 
ests of our export trade if our consuls were merchants 
in active business. Before any change in a retro¬ 
grade sense should be made, it would be important 
for us to take the evidence not only of our consuls 
but of our merchants and chambers of commerce on 
this subject, as well as to study the results of the 
practice on other nations. 

It should be remarked that by usage in most coun¬ 
tries merchant consuls, “commercial consuls,” hold a 
distinctively lower rank than consules missi, consuls 
cnvoye's, or “ diplomatic consuls,” as they are often 
called. They are not held in the same respect or 
esteem, nor do they by treaty enjoy the same privi¬ 
leges as those not engaged in trade. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


79 


The inconveniences arising from having consular 
officers subjects or citizens of the country where they 
officially reside have been so great, that most countries, 
that admit the importance of the consular service, 
appoint no one but their own subjects in places of the 
slightest importance. The allegiance of a consul to 
his native government, and the duties following from 
it, constantly conflict with the duties which he owes 
to the country which has appointed him. Our laws 
now forbid a foreigner to be appointed consul of the 
United States, or at all events to be a salaried con¬ 
sul ; and in our service there are very few exceptions 
to this rule. Very much the same objections which 
apply to a foreigner apply to a naturalized citizen of 
the United States, especially if he should be ap¬ 
pointed consul in the place of his nativity. Among 
the foreigners who come to make their home in the 
United States there are many excellent and eminent 
men ; but it cannot be denied that the majority of 
them come here in order to obtain better conditions 
of life than they have had at home. If they have 
gained sufficient position in this country to be ap¬ 
pointed consuls, it shows that they have profited by 
their opportunities; but it by no means proves that 
they will be of service to the United States in an 
official position in the country of their birth. Old 
habits and connections, family relations, perhaps even 
the causes which led them to emigrate, bring them 


8o 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


back to the society which was once famiiiar to them; 
and this, as a general rule, is not the society which a 
consul should cultivate. Much as we disregard the 
prejudices of class distinction here, we are bound to 
regard them when we send persons abroad in an of¬ 
ficial position, not for the purpose of giving them a 
good place, but to render service to the United States. 
The complaint has not been unfrequently made by 
merchants in European towns, “ Have you no Amer¬ 
icans who are fit to be consuls here ? Send any one 
you like, and we shall be glad to be polite to him 
and of service to him; but you cannot expect us, 
with our habits and traditions, to introduce to our 
families So and So, whom we have all known as occu¬ 
pying such and such a position in life.” Apart from 
that, a naturalized citizen going back to the place of 
his birth is far more apt, owing to European laws, 
customs, and prejudices, to become involved in diffi¬ 
culties with the government of the country to which 
he is appointed, perhaps even for reasons preceding 
his emigration. It cannot be expected that a govern¬ 
ment will cheerfully accept as consul a man, no 
matter what his abilities may be, who has emigrated 
on account of political difficulties, or who has gone 
away in order to escape the conscription. Besides 
this, falling back, as has been said, into their old and 
accustomed family circle, consuls are apt in such cases 
to be surrounded with a set of persons who render it 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


81 


disagreeable for an American even to go to the office 
on business. 

Of late years, especially since the end of the war, 
when it has been considered necessary by politicians 
to cultivate the foreign-born voters, there has been a 
great tendency to appoint naturalized citizens as con¬ 
suls ; partly in order to please the body to which 
they belong, and partly because, speaking the lan¬ 
guage of the country, and presumably acquainted with 
its habits, they are thought to be more capable. In 
this way we have very recently seen a number of 
naturalized Germans appointed to the chief consu¬ 
lates of Germany and Austria, a Bohemian to 
Prague, an Italian to Leghorn, a Canadian to To¬ 
ronto, a Nova Scotian to Halifax, Irishmen to Ireland, 
Scotchmen to Scotland, Frenchmen to France, etc. 
No person who has lived abroad or has had to do 
with consular business, whether as an official or a 
client, can for a moment doubt that the interests of 
the United States would be far better served had 
natiVe-born citizens been appointed to these posts. 

The accepted consular hierarchy in most countries 
is, beginning at the highest, Consul-General, Consul, 
Vice-Consul, and Consular-Agent. The American 
system varies somewhat from this. Our consuls-gen- 
eral are not only given that title to notice superiority 
in rank, but are charged with the supervision of ah 

our consulates in the country in which they are cs- 
6 


82 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


tablished. They have, however, within their own 
special jurisdiction, to perform exactly the same 
duties as a consul. With us vice-consuls are never 
independent officers subordinate to a consul, but 
simply persons who take the place of a consul when 
he is absent or ill, and who at other times exercise no 
functions. What corresponds to the vice-consuls in 
other countries is by us called a consular-agent, who 
does not have as complete powers as a vice-consul, 
and is generally appointed by, and is immediately 
under the control of, a consul, for places where busi¬ 
ness may have to be done but which he cannot him¬ 
self attend to. For their conduct the consul is 
himself personally responsible. We have also deputy- 
consuls, appointed in places where much business is 
to be done, with all the powers of a consul for signing 
papers. The term commercial-agent is somewhat an 
anomaly. He is not recognized by international law 
as having any consular privileges, although the State 
Department has at times made an effort to secure 
such recognition in certain places where the govern¬ 
ments were unwilling to allow the appointment of 
consuls and yet where the exportation to the United 
States was so great as to necessitate the presence of 
some one who could sign invoices. An officer of this 
kind was appointed simply as an agent for the Treas¬ 
ury. Few, if any, such places now exist; but the 
practice has grown on the Government of appointing 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 83 

commercial-agents in places where a consul or vice- 
consul would be received, because such an appoint¬ 
ment does not need confirmation by the Senate, and 
it enables the President to establish positions for a 
few years, and place in them persons whose names it 
might be awkward to send in for confirmation. 

In a bill for the reorganization of the consular ser¬ 
vice which was proposed to Congress in 1884 by 
the State Department, consular-agents are generally 
abolished, and those officers are styled vice-consuls, as 
in other countries. This is easier for the Government, 
as in many places well-to-do merchants would be will¬ 
ing to accept the position of honorary unpaid vice- 
consul on account of the dignity, who refuse that of 
consular-agent as directly marking them as officers of 
inferior grade. 

In the manufacturing districts of Germany and 
Great Britain it would perhaps be difficult to find 
either honorary vice-consuls or consular-agents willing 
to perform the work of certifying to invoices without 
pay. In these countries consular agencies are often 
multiplied without real necessity, except to increase 
the perquisites of the consuls, who are permitted to 
receive fees amounting to $1,000 from the agencies 
under their control. This brings our service into dis¬ 
repute. There can, for instance, be no real need of a 
consular agent at Burtscheid, which practically forms 
part of Aix-la-Chapelle. 


84 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C J r . 


In 1864 Mr. Seward succeeded in inducing Con¬ 
gress to authorize the appointment of thirteen con¬ 
sular clerks, who “ can be removed only for cause 
stated in writing and submitted to Congress.” The 
idea that these clerks would form the nucleus of a 
consular service has proved illusory. These excellent 
and praiseworthy officials have generally refused pro¬ 
motion. They prefer a position of low rank and low 
pay ($1,000 per annum, and $1,200 after five years of 
continuous service), because it is permanent, knowing 
that if they were promoted to be consuls they could 
immediately be removed without cause, to make 
room for others. The number of consular clerks has 
never been increased above the original thirteen, and 
the necessary clerical assistance at most consulates is 
given by temporary hired clerks, who are in the ser¬ 
vice of the consulate but have no official position. 
The money to pay them is voted by Congress, but the 
points at which it is to be used are not left to the dis¬ 
cretion of the Secretary of State, as should properly 
be the case, but are fixed in the law. In this way 
clerk-hire has been provided for places where it was 
quite unnecessary, because the consuls at these posts 
could bring political influence to bear in Congress, 
and other more important places have been left with¬ 
out allowances. 

The consular service has grown greatly since 1856, 
because with the heavier customs duties imposed at 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


35 


the beginning of our war, and the general increase of 
the commerce of our country, it has been necessary for 
the protection of the revenue to establish consulates 
in many inland manufacturing towns, rarely visited 
by Americans, where otherwise there would be no 
need of consular officers. This increase in number 
has been greater among feed than among salaried con¬ 
sulates, i.e.j among those which are maintained by the 
fees received, and for which no appropriations have to 
be asked from Congress. The salaries are in the main 
still fixed on the basis of the law of 1856, modified by 
that of 1874, which divided them into seven grades 
or classes. 

It may be safely said that in most of the large, and 
especially the commercial towns of Europe, the cost 
of living has doubled, if not trebled, within the last 
thirty years. A very careful investigation on this 
subject was made by the British consuls, by order of 
their government, in 1873. Notwithstanding this ad¬ 
vance of prices, the scale of salaries of American con¬ 
suls has scarcely been changed in these thirty years, 
when men are still sent to Florence and Naples, ex¬ 
pected to be competent to perform all the duties of 
the office, hold a respectable position in society, and 
pay proper attention to the numerous Americans visit¬ 
ing those places, on the sum of $1,500 a year, scarcely 
more than is paid to the subordinate employees of 
Congress. 


86 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


We have, therefore, 20 consuls-general, with salaries 
varying from $2,000 up to $6,000, besides 14 diplo¬ 
matic officials who have the functions of consuls-gen¬ 
eral ; 146 salaried consuls, who are not allowed to 
engage in business, divided into six grades, according 
to the salary, from $1,500 to $4,000, with two excep¬ 
tional cases at Liverpool and Hongkong, where the 
salary is $6,000 and $5,000 respectively; 22 consuls, 
with a salary of $1,000 only, who are allowed to en¬ 
gage in business; and 74 feed consuls, who are not 
prohibited from engaging in trade, and whose remu¬ 
neration varies, but cannot exceed $2,500 per annum. 
As there is but one consul of Class I. at $4,000, and 
as all the consuls of Class II. at $3,500 are in China, 
except one at Callao, it may be presumed that $2,500 
is considered by Congress high salary. The experi¬ 
ence of every one who has ever been in the consular 
service, or who has lived abroad in a private ca¬ 
pacity, shows that in most cases this is utterly insuf¬ 
ficient. We have also 40 commercial agents, of whom 
37 are paid by fees; 378 consular agents, also paid by 
fees to the amount of $1,000; and 13 consular clerks, 
a total of 707, without counting vice-consuls and dep¬ 
uty consuls, who act only in the absence or incapacity 
of their chief. 

It is impossible, however, to judge of the receipts of 
a consul solely by his salary, or even by adding to 
that the sum of $1,000, which he is allowed to retain 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


87 


from the receipts of the consular agencies under his 
control. He receives fees. These fees are of two 
kinds, official and non-official. The official fees, for 
all acts which he is required to do in his capacity as 
consul for governmental purposes, have to be strictly 
accounted for and paid back to the Government. 
The unofficial or notarial fees which he may receive 
for drawing papers or for witnessing signatures, as he 
may do from the notarial powers granted to his office, 
are retained by him. So also he retains his fees for 
taking testimony under a special rogatory commission 
of some American court. The amount of such fees is 
variable and can scarcely be estimated. In three or 
four places, where there are many resident Americans, 
or many persons who have property interests in 
America, which require the preparation and signature 
of legal papers, they are much greater than in smaller 
places. In London, Liverpool, Paris, Dresden, and 
Florence, for example, these fees add greatly to the 
consul’s income as well as to his duties. In Rome 
they amounted in one year to about one thousand 
dollars, and in the next to not one hundred dollars. 
In very many consulates they would not average ten 
dollars a year. There being no fixed tariff for these 
notarial fees, they are irregular, and it is said that 
some consuls have charged as much as $5 f° r the ac_ 
knowledgment of a signature, the fee for which in 
most of our States is only twenty-five cents. It would 


88 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


be better for every one, and certainly better for the 
good repute of our service, if notarial duties were 
made, not permissive as at present, but obligatory 
upon consuls, and the fees were made official and all 
paid into the Treasury. Such a regulation should not, 
however, affect the remuneration for personal services 

i 

rendered in drawing papers, wills, etc., and for taking 
testimony, which should, as now, remain to the con¬ 
sul personally. In many cases the consul is the only 
person who could render such services. 

Most of the illegitimate, semi-legitimate, or irregular 
fees, by which consuls have sometimes added to their 
income, have been in one way or another abolished. 
The habit had grown up to regard as official fees 
only those which were set down in the official table 
sent from the State Department. For all new duties, 
whether imposed by the regulations of our own cus¬ 
toms service, by the laws of individual states, or by 
the usages of a foreign country, the fees were fixed by 
the consul and were collected by him for his indi¬ 
vidual profit, because he was performing work entirely 
outside of his regular duties. Such were, for instance, 
immigrant certificates, certificates of the American 
origin of petroleum barrels, or grain-bags, cooperage 
certificates, etc. But most of these have either been 
abolished or made purely official, and the abolition of 
fees in connection with ships’ papers has removed the 
temptation to collect illicit fees for expediting them. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM . 


89 


Almost the only remnant of irregular fees seems to 
be a practice, prevalent in some consulates in England, 
with regard to the commissioner’s fee for adminis¬ 
tering the oath to invoices, which is thought to be in 
some measure authorized by the words of the Con¬ 
sular Regulations, par. 467. It is customary in Great 
Britain to require the shipper to swear to the correct¬ 
ness of his invoices before a commissioner authorized 
to administer oaths, the consul himself having no such 
power. As the consul must be acquainted with the 
commissioner, in order to recognize his signature, and 
certify to his qualification, the necessities of business, 
and the convenience of merchants at large consulates, 
have compelled consuls to have a commissioner in at¬ 
tendance at the consulate during certain hours. As 
the legal fees of the commissioner are rather large, 
being generally three shillings and sixpence for each 
triplicate, or ten shillings and sixpence for each in¬ 
voice, some consuls have, where it has been practica¬ 
ble, employed these commissioners on a fixed salary, 
and have thus been able to reduce the fees paid by the 
merchants by over one-half. If business should fall 
off below the estimate, the consul is personally bound 
to pay to the commissioner the difference between the 
fees taken in and the salary, and in the contrary case 
the consul himself pockets the difference. This prac¬ 
tice is certainly an advantage and an economy for the 
merchants, but it is also at times a source of large 


90 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


gain to the consuls. It has been several times pro¬ 
posed to put an end to this practice, either by abolish¬ 
ing the oath, which is not generally required in other 
countries (in fact, such oaths are forbidden in Germany 
by the German authorities, and are practically impos¬ 
sible in many other countries on account of the for¬ 
mality and expense), or by making the commissioner’s 
fees official ones, to be returned to the Treasury, in 
which case the responsibility for the commissioner’s 
salary should fall upon the Government. This last 
course was practically that proposed by the State De¬ 
partment in the draft of a bill submitted to Congress 
in 1884,* but in that case salaries should be increased, 
as it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find com¬ 
petent men to do the work on the derisory salaries 
now granted. 

The question of the necessity of the oath, and in¬ 
deed of the advantage even of consular certificates to 
invoices, is one which belongs not so much to the 
State Department as to the Treasury and the collec¬ 
tion of the customs revenue. The fact that there 
are fewer undervaluations in British goods is ascribed 
by some to the peculiar British regard for the sanctity 
of an oath ; by others to the innate truthfulness of the 
Anglo-Saxon character. Where goods are sold on 
consignment, especially goods manufactured expressly 
for America, and for which there is no market else- 

* H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 121, 48th Congress, 1st Session. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


91 


where, invoices are often only a matter of form, and 
are frequently false. The consuls at Lyons, Zurich, 
and Horgen were therefore, in the autumn of 1884, 
authorized to employ experts to examine and report 
the cost of labor and materials used in producing the 
goods shipped from their districts. This system has 
proved very successful, and has already saved to the 
revenue millions of dollars. It would, however, be 
difficult, if not impossible, to apply this system every¬ 
where.* 

The various extra-official fees not only bring our 
consulates into disrepute abroad, as has already been 
remarked, but they have had at home a deleterious 
and debauching influence upon public opinion, in in¬ 
ducing the belief that our consulates are in general 
lucrative positions, in which a man may get rich 
without work. The number of applicants for these 
offices has therefore greatly increased. When it is 
known that consuls receive absolutely nothing more 
than their petty salaries, it is to be hoped that the 
pressure for office will be so diminished as to allow 
the reorganization of the consular service on a perma¬ 
nent basis. 

The allowances to consuls are very moderate. They 
are given for office-rent an amount never more than 

* For some interesting details on all these points, see the 
Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Collection of 
Duties, of December 7, 1: 85. 


92 


A MERICA A r DIPL OMA C i \ 


twenty per cent, of their salary; clerk-hire in certain 
cases in very sparing sums, generally fixed in the Ap¬ 
propriations Act for each consulate, and not, as it should 
be, at the discretion of the Department ; and purely 
official expenses, in moderate amounts, for postage, 
stationery, blanks, and printing. “ It is expected of 
consular officers that their offices should be suitably 
and respectably furnished. For this purpose they are 
allowed for furniture “ a book-case, and other cases 
capable of containing the archives, a suitable desk and 
table, and the necessary chairs,” if the sanction in each 
case of the Department has been previously obtained. 
But the keeping up of the Government office is entirely 
at the personal charge of the consul, for “ carpets, 
matting, curtains, gas-fixtures, and like articles of fur¬ 
niture, as well as fire, light, and servants, will not be 
provided by the Government, and will not be allowed 
in the consular accounts.” * 

As matters now stand, with the small salaries paid, 
the consular system was, up to last year, entirely self- 
supporting ; that is to say, the official fees received by 
the consuls far more than paid all the outlay. In the 
fiscal year 1883, for example, the total expense of the 
consular service was $870,290.60, and the total re¬ 
ceipts were $926,054.95, leaving a surplus in the 
Treasury of $55,744.35. In 1884 the surplus was 
$36,587.24. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, 

* Consular Regulations, par. 517. 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


93 


the total expenses were $870,183.10, and the receipts 
$791,345.43. This deficit of $78,837.67 is to be ex¬ 
plained partly by a falling off of fees for invoices, some 
of which are still unaccounted for, but chiefly by the 
abolition (law of June 26, 1884) of the fees for ser¬ 
vices to American vessels, which in 1884 amounted 
to $91,031.86. 

Now, there is no reason in the world why offices so 
important as consulates should be expected to pay for 
the expense of the system, like the Post-Office De¬ 
partment. It would in the end be more advanta¬ 
geous to the Government if even this amount were 
spent on the consuls, irrespective of fees received. Of 
course, if the revenue system should be materially 
changed, many consulates would become useless, and 
the returns for fees received (and they chiefly are for 
the verification of invoices) would be materially di¬ 
minished. 

The expenses of the British consular service for 
the financial year of 1883-84 were .£254,124, or $1,- 
235,334, or only about three hundred and sixty-five 
thousand dollars more than our own. But for this 
sum, owing to better salaries, more permanent tenure 
of office, the insistence on qualifications for office, pro¬ 
motion for good service, and the hope of a pension, 
Great Britain obtained a remarkably efficient service, 
including 42 consuls-general, 145 consuls, 458 vice- 
consuls, and 56 consular agents, besides deputies, 


94 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 

clerks, and chaplains. Few posts are without salary, 
chiefly such places as Berlin, Frankfort, Leipzig, Gen¬ 
eva, and Rome, where English consuls have very little 
to do, and where the offices are honorary ones, which 
have existed for many years. *The salaries of consuls- 
general vary from $5,000 to $12,500, as at New York; 
and the salaries of consuls are sometimes as high as 
$7,500, as at Astrabad, and $6,000, as at Boston. 

The French consular system has been an excellent 
one ever since it was reorganized in 1836 ; and it has 
improved since the reforms of M. Freycinet in 1880. 
France, in 1884, had in active service 28 consuls-gen- 
eral ; 46 consuls of the first class, 48 consuls of the 
second class; 12 assistant consuls {consuls suppliants, 
a title substituted for the old e'leve consul , or consular 
pupil); 10 candidates for the rank of assistant con¬ 
suls; 103 vice-consuls; 24chancellors of the first class, 
36 of the second class, 62 of the third class; 53 drago¬ 
mans and interpreters, and 113 clerks, making in all 
535 persons. The salaries of the consuls-general vary 
from $4,000, as at Antwerp, to $10,000, as at Cairo 
and Calcutta, and $12,000, as at New York and Shang¬ 
hai. The highest salaries of consuls are $9,000 at 
Batavia, and $8,000 at San Francisco, while the low¬ 
est vary from $2,400 to $3,000. The highest vice- 
consular salaries are at Hang-kow $3,000, and Gal¬ 
veston $2,800; the lowest are $600 and $700. The 
assistant consuls are each paid $600; the interpreters 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


95 


from $1,000 to $4,000; the chancellors from $1,000 
to $2,400, and the clerks from $300 to $1,100, making 
the total expended for the one hundred and thirteen 
clerks $66,640. The total cost of consular salaries, 
including clerks, etc., in 1884, was about $943,000. 
The other expenses were about $340,000 more. 

A consul is appointed, as we have seen, without 
preliminary examination, on the nomination of the 
President, and is confirmed by the Senate. It is im¬ 
possible, therefore, to change him from one post to 
another, even though his special abilities or a sudden 
emergency might make this desirable, without a new 
appointment and a new confirmation. If the consular 
system should ever be made a permanent one, it 
would be very desirable that, even if Congress should 
fix the salaries to be paid at certain posts, consuls 
should be appointed only to the grade, leaving the 
posts to which they might be sent at the discretion 
of the Department. 

The consul, after his appointment, is generally al¬ 
lowed thirty days, during which, by law, he may re¬ 
ceive salary, for the purpose of receiving his instruc¬ 
tions and making himself in some slight way familiar 
with his duties by personal instruction at the State 
Department. This, however, is, in practice, a mere 
formality. He is then allowed a certain number of 
days, fixed by regulation for different places, for arriv¬ 
ing at his post. After arriving there he cannot, how- 


96 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


ever, enter upon his duties until he has received what 
is called an exequatur , or recognition from the govern¬ 
ment in whose country he is to reside. This exe¬ 
quatur is sometimes a document given to him signed 
by the chief of the government; in others simply a 
publication in the official journal of the country that 
he has permission to perform his functions. In some 
countries, like Turkey, the consul is obliged to pay a 
very heavy fee for this document, there called a berat. 

The object of the exequatur is very simple; for it is 
a rule of international law that a public officer of one 
state cannot perform his duties in the territory of 
another state unless he be acceptable to its govern¬ 
ment. This enables a foreign government to inquire 
into the antecedents of a consul, and to decide 
whether his presence be accompanied by no disadvan¬ 
tage. Refusals to grant the exequatur are not un¬ 
common. An English consul was refused by Russia, 
in the Caucasus, because it was alleged that he was 
hostile to the Russian government, and had expressed 
strong opinions about Russian movements in Asia. 
In our own history, without going further back, a 
consul recently appointed to Beirut was rejected by 
Turkey, because he was a clergyman and might be 
too much connected with the missionaries ; another 
was rejected by Austria on account of his political 
opinions, he having previously been an Austrian sub¬ 
ject. Exequaturs of consuls are sometimes withdrawn, 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


97 


though an opportunity is usually afforded to the gov¬ 
ernment of the offending consul to withdraw them 
before this measure is adopted. 

After the consul has received his permission to act, 
whether permanent in the shape of an exequatur , or 
temporary until his exequatur should be demanded, 
his first duty is to take possession of the archives and 
property of the consulate, until then kept by his pre¬ 
decessor or his representative, and sign jointly with 
him an inventory thereof. One copy of this is kept 
in the consular office and another is sent to the home 
Government. He then proceeds to notify the other 
American consuls in the country, and those immedi¬ 
ately neighboring, of his entrance on duty, because 
occasionally there are questions and disputes causing 
correspondence. He also makes official calls, for the 
same purpose of notification, as well as from courtesy, 
on the chief authorities of the town as well as the 
province, if those be resident there, such as the gov¬ 
ernor, the prefect, the mayor, the commandant of the 
troops, the director of the police, the captain of the 
port, the postmaster, the head of the chamber of com¬ 
merce, and indeed upon all more or less official per¬ 
sons with whom he may be brought into contact, or 
from whom he may find it necessary to ask favors. 
He also makes personal official calls on all the other 
foreign consuls resident in the place. 1 his is not 

only a matter of courtesy, but of advantage; for he 
7 


98 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


may be at any time brought into relations with them 
through a dispute between an American citizen and 
the subject of some foreign country. 

On the whole our consuls, in spite of the low sala¬ 
ries which sometimes compel them to live in a man¬ 
ner unbecoming their position, and disagreeable to 
themselves, have performed their duties remarkably 
well. Even the worst of consuls, finding themselves 
with an official responsibility put upon them, and with 
the duty of representing their country, have behaved 
with far more credit to us than could have been ex¬ 
pected before their appointment. Unfortunately our 
Government has too frequently sent uneducated, un¬ 
polished, and utterly inexperienced men to take the 
positions of consuls in places of great responsibility, 
where experience, ability, and tact are prime requi¬ 
sites. Sometimes they are broken down in health, 
really unfit to work, and have been sent to a foreign 
climate in order to recuperate. Sometimes they have 
been unfortunate in business; and with the ignorance 
too widely prevalent of the cost of living abroad, they 
have been sent to gain a livelihood or to revive their 
fortunes. This class of appointments is especially un¬ 
fortunate and discreditable to us, because such per¬ 
sons, anxious to make money, are sometimes too un¬ 
scrupulous as to the methods they take. They not 
only contravene the laws and regulations, and involve 
themselves in debt, but do acts which no person, and 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


99 


especially an official, should be guilty of. Indeed, 
there can be nothing worse, unless, possibly, men who 
have sometimes been sent to important places in order 
to reform them. Can it be expected that a man, who 
has been a drunkard at home, will suddenly improve, 
when he finds himself alone in a foreign country, 
ignorant of the language, unacquainted with society, 
and without resources within himself ? On the con¬ 
trary, he generally grows worse; and such men have 
at times brought our consular service into great dis¬ 
repute. 

While saying that our consuls have generally done 
well, we must admit that they do not do as well as 
they would if they were properly paid, and if the ser¬ 
vice were permanent. They have naturally to keep 
within their income, and generally their official in¬ 
come is all they have to rely upon. They try to in¬ 
crease it by all lawful means, and are therefore obliged 
to live in a mean way, which is not only unbecoming 
the representative of a great country, but which also 
prevents them from reciprocating the courtesies ten¬ 
dered to them by their colleagues and the citizens of 
the place ; and thus hinders them from making those 
acquaintances which are absolutely necessary to the 
fulfilment of their duties or the proper understanding 
of their business. At the same time one must always 
take the accounts of travellers about our consuls with 
a few grains of allowance; for they are very apt to 


IOO 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


give importance to seeming breaches of politeness and 
hospitality without taking into consideration the pe¬ 
culiar circumstances in which the consuls are situ¬ 
ated. Still, much stress should be laid on the neces¬ 
sity imposed on consuls to enter into pleasant, and 
even intimate, relations with the authorities and chief 
merchants of their place of residence. In this way 
they cannot only more easily become informed on 
commercial matters, but can better perform one of 
their chief duties, the protection of American citizens. 
Many a vexation to travellers could have been re¬ 
moved, if the consul, in the first instance, without 
intervening officials, had been in a position to repre¬ 
sent the case properly in a personal and friendly way 
to the authorities. 

The need of a reform and reorganization of our 
consular system has long been evident. Our Secre¬ 
taries of State have frequently expressed their opin¬ 
ions on this subject, and Mr. Frelinghuysen, in 1884, 
presented to Congress the draught of a bill, with rec¬ 
ommendations about salaries. Although this was in 
answer to a wish of Congress expressed in the Appro¬ 
priations Act of 1883, no attention was paid to it. 
President Cleveland has again recommended this 
subject to Congress in his message of December 8, 
1885. 

Such a reform should have in view the requirement 
of higher qualifications for office, more permanent 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


IOI 


tenure, the promotion of efficient and experienced 
officers, higher salaries, the abolition of extra-official 
fees, and a better system of consular inspection. As 
consuls are in no sense political officers, there is no 
reason in the nature of things why the principles of 
Civil Service Reform should not be applied to the 
consular system. But in order to accomplish this, 
vacancies in the higher posts should be filled generally 
by promotion ; appointments of new men should be 
made only to the lower grades ; and the number of 
consular clerks should be greatly increased, so as to 
form a nucleus of young men acquainted with consu¬ 
lar duties, from which promotions could be made. 
The experience of other countries shows us that two 
of the strongest incentives to good official work are a 
tenure of office permanent during good behavior, and 
the hope of promotion and reward. If these be as¬ 
sured him, a consul will do efficient service for years 
with a scanty salary, and in an uncomfortable and 
even unhealthy post. 

There is one objection to long tenure, which it 
seems almost absurd to mention,—that a consul 
would become denationalized and un-Americanized 
by a long residence abroad. Englishmen always re¬ 
main Englishmen wherever they may be; but as 
Americans have a more receptive and more assimila¬ 
tive nature, it is possible that, if living abroad as pri¬ 
vate persons, either for the necessities of their business 


102 


A MEK1CA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


or for their own ease and comfort, Americans might, 
in length of time, come almost to identify themselves 
in feeling with the people among whom they dwell. 
But this could scarcely be the case with American of¬ 
ficials, whose sole duty is to care for American interests 
and to protect American rights, who read American 
newspapers, who are in constant relations with Amer¬ 
ica and Americans, and whose daily work is with in¬ 
terests counter to those of the people of the country 
where he lives. On the contrary, with every year of 
his stay in the service he becomes more patriotic and 
more truly American. What has been sometimes 
mistaken for a want of American feeling is the neces¬ 
sary conformity to the social usages of the country, 
the adoption of new modes of life, which with ad¬ 
vancing years becomes a second nature ; and the right 
feeling of every sensible man which induces him to 
look at the good rather than the bad points of a peo¬ 
ple among whom he has long lived. But all coun¬ 
tries differ, and it is to be hoped that no reform of the 
service would compel a consul to live always at the 
same post or in the same country. 

There seems to be current an exaggerated notion 
of what consuls can do for trade. In reality they can 
do little more than furnish information, or be in a 
condition to procure it, give advice, and see that the 
merchant in foreign lands stands in no worse position 
than those of other countries. English commerce 


OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 


103 


was not built up by the consuls. The shipping agent, 
who wished a return cargo, has been a much more 
important factor. The English consular service, how¬ 
ever, keeps pace with commerce. Owing to the 
rapid development of manufactures on the European 
continent, and the consequent commercial rivalry 
with England, it was thought best to have someone 
abroad who could take in the whole subject, and the 
English consul at Dtisseldorf was, a few years ago, 
sent to join the English Embassy at Berlin, as com¬ 
mercial attache for Germany. Subsequently his func¬ 
tions were extended over the whole of Europe, and 
he was transferred, in the same capacity, to Paris. 

The best results, as concerns the increase of foreign 
trade, have, probably, been obtained by the consular 
service of Belgium. Owing to the efforts of M. Lion 
d’Audrimont in 1879 and 1880, there was a reform 
and an increase of this service. Voyages of commer¬ 
cial exploration were undertaken in Spain, Italy, and 
Southeastern Europe. One consequence was the 
formation of a museum of samples of the products of 
each country, and of the styles and kinds of goods 
preferred and most readily purchased in foreign coun¬ 
tries, in order to familiarize manufactures with what 
was desired. Belgian ministers were instructed to 
conclude conventions for the mutual execution of 
judgments of tribunals, for the collection of debts, for 
the recognition of stock companies, and for the extra- 


104 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


dition of criminals. The result has been that Belgian 
enterprise has greatly prospered, and that Belgian 
goods and Belgian companies are rapidly taking the 
lead in Southeastern Europe. American manufac¬ 
turers and merchants are generally careless about 
foreign trade, except when the home market is small, 
and, even when they have made successful beginnings 
in foreign trade, they are apt to neglect them if the 
home market revives. (We may trace here, perhaps, 
the influence of protection or particularism.) They 
are also apt to insist on their own modes of credit 
and of doing business, without regard to the usages 
of other countries ; and, paying no regard to the pre¬ 
judice of other people as to shapes, sizes, weight, 
width and style, they insist that whatever suits 
America, is intrinsically right and best, and should be 
accepted in other countries. Do what he may to 
make an opening for American manufactures abroad, 
a consul cannot overcome in this respect the inertia 
and obstinacy of American manufacturers.* 

* It should be remarked, before leaving this subject, that 
almost the first book (one by a Russian was published almost 
simultaneously) on the consular system, was by an American. 
D. B. Warden, our consul general for France, published at 
Paris in 1813, entitled “ On the Origin, Nature, Progress and 
Influence of Consular Establishments.” 


III. 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 

Diplomacy, its Significance and Intention.—Rank of Repre¬ 
sentatives.—Rules of Vienna.—Ambassadors and Minis¬ 
ters.—Reasons for Sending Ambassadors.—Etiquette at 
Foreign Offices.—Detrimental Custom at Constantinople. 
—Ministers Plenipotentiary and Ministers Resident.—Ob¬ 
jections to our Practice.—A Single Class of Ministers 
Preferable.—Suggested Change in the Rules of Vienna.— 
Commissioners.—Diplomatic Agents.—Secretaries and 
Attaches.—Qualifications for Diplomatists.—French the 
Language of Diplomacy.—Naturalized Citizens.—Negroes. 
—Clerical Diplomatists.—Appointments.—Letters of Cre¬ 
dence.—Request for Acceptance.—Etiquette of Recep¬ 
tion.—The Question of Diplomatic Uniform.—Social 
Duties.—Their Advantages.—Hospitality to Americans.— 
Lord Palmerston’s Views.—Mr. Monroe.—Mr. Schroeder. 
—Effect of the Social Isolation of a Minister.—Duties at 
a Legation.—Despatches.—Complaints.—Naturalized Citi¬ 
zens.—Commercial Questions.—Requests for Presenta¬ 
tion at Court.—Necessity of Resident Ministers.—Lord 
Palmerston’s Opinion.—Union of Diplomatic and Consu¬ 
lar Functions.—Relative Importance of Missions.—Sala¬ 
ries.—Allowances.—Outfits. 

WHILE consuls, as we have seen, are charged pri¬ 
marily with the commercial interests of their country 
and with the protection of individual rights, the 
maintenance of friendly relations between states and 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


106 

the settlement of disputes which may arise between 
them are entrusted to agents of another, of a higher 
class and with different functions, under the gen¬ 
eral name of diplomatic agents or, more briefly, 
diplomats.* 

The word diplomacy itself occurs in its modern 
sense only toward the end of the eighteenth century. 
In French it is said to be first used by Count Ver- 
gennes, and in English, I believe, was employed for 
the first time by Burke, although not exactly in its 
present sense. The word has had a long history to 
reach its present meaning. The science of diplo¬ 
matics, the study of ancient charters, documents, and 
diplomas, is a very different thing from the science of 
diplomacy. According to Calvo, who is now generally 
accepted as the best modern writer of international 
law,t 

“ Diplomacy is the science of the relations existing between 
different states, such as result from their reciprocal interests, 
the principles of international law and the stipulations of trea¬ 
ties or conventions. The knowledge of the rules and of the 
usages resulting from them is indispensable to conduct public 
affairs properly and to carry on political negotiations. There¬ 
fore, we may say, in more concise terms, that diplomacy is 
the science of relations, or simply the art of negotiations. 

. . . The essential nature of diplomacy is to assure the 

* This convenient word, which is borrowed from the French diplomate , 
is now commonly used for every diplomatic official. 

t Calvo (Carlos), like Wheaton, is an American, though from the Ar¬ 
gentine Republic. 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


107 


well-being of peoples, to maintain between them peace and 
good harmony, while guaranteeing the safety, the tranquillity, 
and the dignity of each of them. The part played by diplo¬ 
matic agents consists principally in conducting negotiations 
relative to these important objects, in watching over the exe¬ 
cution of the treaties which follow from them, in preventing 
anything which might injure the interests of their fellow- 
citizens in the countries where they reside, and in protecting 
those of them who may be obliged to ask for their assistance.”* 

Every nation, as the result of its independence, has 
the theoretical right of being represented by agents of 
whatever rank it may choose, and of receiving or not 
the agents of other countries. According to princi¬ 
ples now universally accepted, every nation is in this 
way equal with every other; but formerly so many 
disputes arose from personal considerations, from the 
rank of the agents, and from the real or assumed im¬ 
portance of the countries which sent them, that the 
Congress at Vienna, in 1815, which regulated for the 
time being the affairs of Europe, felt it necessary to 
lay down certain rules, which have since then been 
followed by all civilized countries, and which the 
United States have formally accepted.'!' According 

*Le Droit International, third edition, i., 455, 457. 

f It would take too long to tell here of the constant and 
ridiculous disputes for precedence at the Congresses of Nyme- 
gen, Ryswyk, and Utrecht. The footmen’s quarrel at Utrecht 
forms the subject of an amusing article in the Spectator. 
Many interesting details on this and similar subjects may 
be found in Four Lectures on Subjects connected with Diplo¬ 
macy, by the late Montague Bernard ; in a very entertaining 


io 8 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


to these rules diplomatic agents were divided into 
three classes : First, Ambassadors, Legates, or Nuncios, 
these latter two being sent by the Pope only; second, 
Envoys, Ministers Plenipotentiary, or other persons 
accredited to a sovereign or a sovereign state; third, 
Charges d ’Affaires, who are accredited only to the 
Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Congress at Aix-la- 
Chapelle, in 1818, completed this classification by allow¬ 
ing another class called Ministers Resident, who were 
to take rank between envoys and charges d’affaires.* 

though light book, Embassies and Foreign Courts, by “ The 
Roving Englishman,” the late E. C. Grenville Murray ; and in 
International Vanities, by E. Marshall. 

* The rules on this subject which have been prescribed by 
the Department, are the same as those contained in the seven 
rules of the Congress of Vienna found in the protocol of the 
session of March 9, 1815, and in the supplementary or eighth 
rule of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle of November 21, 1818. 
They are as follows : 

Article I. Diplomatic agents are divided into three classes : 
That of ambassadors, legates, or nuncios ; that of envoys, 
ministers, or other persons accredited to sovereigns ; that of 
charges d’affaires accredited to ministers for foreign affairs. 

Art. II. Ambassadors, legates, or nuncios only have the 
representative character. 

Art. III. Diplomatic agents on an extraordinary mission 
have not, on that account, any superiority of rank. 

Art. IV. Diplomatic agents shall take precedence in their 
respective classes according to the date of the official notifica¬ 
tion of their arrival. The present regulation shall not cause 
any innovation with regard to the representative of the Pope. 

Art. V. A uniform mode shall be determined in each state 
for the reception of diplomatic agents of each class. 

Art. VI. Relations of consanguinity or of family alliance 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


log 


According to the old system, ambassadors were 
supposed to represent not only the country but the 
person of the sovereign, and were, therefore, given 
various higher ceremonial honors than those accorded 
to other diplomatic agents. They had also the right 
to address themselves personally to the sovereign or 
chief magistrate of the country to which they were 
sent, for matters of business, instead of going through 
the usual routine of negotiating with the Minister of 
Foreign Affairs. In actual practice ambassadors now¬ 
adays have no rights of representation superior to 
ministers, and differ from them only in rank and 
precedence. The sovereign of a country is now gen¬ 
erally so merged in the government of the country, 
that it is practically impossible for an ambassador to 
conduct any business except through the interven- 

between courts, confer no precedence on their diplomatic 
agents. The same rule also applies to political alliances. 

Art. VII. In acts or treaties between several powers which 
grant alternate precedence, the order which is to be observed 
in the signatures shall be decided by lot between the min¬ 
isters. 

Art. VIII. ... It is agreed that ministers resident 
accredited to them shall form, with respect to their prece¬ 
dence, an intermediate class between ministers of the second 
class and charges d’affaires. 

These rules have been formally or tacitly accepted by all 
Governments except the Ottoman Porte, which divides diplo¬ 
matic representatives into three classes only—ambassadors, 
ministers, and charges d’affaires.—Register of the Department 
of State, 1884, p. 14. 


I IO 


A MERIC A A T DIPL OMA C Y. 


tion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The personal 
interests of the sovereign are looked after by some 
private agent, or by some one specially sent on occa¬ 
sions of grand ceremony. The whole theory of the 
particular rights of ambassadors seems to turn in a 
vicious circle. Ambassadors are accorded higher privi¬ 
leges, because they are supposed to represent person¬ 
ally the sovereign, and they represent the sovereign 
personally only because they have higher privileges. 
It is, however, in great part owing to this theory that 
the United States have never sent ambassadors, al¬ 
though expressly allowed to do so by the terms of the 
Constitution. There has been a feeling that as there 
is no sovereign to represent, it would be improper 
to send ambassadors. This, however, has not been 
the case with other republics. In olden times Venice, 
as well as the States-General of Holland, sent am¬ 
bassadors, although they had no sovereign to represent; 
and in our own days the French republic continues 
to send ambassadors, as has been the practice of that 
country under all its various forms of government. 
The French even send an ambassador to Switzerland, 
the only one accredited to that republic. Calvo, in 
speaking of this, says : 

“The difference between agents of the second class—that is, 
ministers and envoys—and those of the first—that is, ambas¬ 
sadors—is rather hard to state. Several publicists have main¬ 
tained that the latter have a formal right of treating directly 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


111 

with the sovereigns, of which the others are deprived. But 
this is a distinction without meaning, especially since the or¬ 
ganization of modern nations no longer rests exclusively upon 
the monarchical principle, and therefore renders it impossi¬ 
ble for sovereigns personally to conduct international negotia¬ 
tions. The only rational distinction that can be established 
between the first two classes of diplomatic agents ought to 
have for a basis some essential difference in their attributes. 
Hence the subtleties imagined by certain authors, who at¬ 
tribute to agents of the first class a permanent and general 
representation of the person of their sovereign, while those of 
the second class have this character only in a transitory way 
and for a special object, clash with the reality of things. In 
our eyes the agents of the first two classes are exactly on the 
same line from the point of view of their character as of their 
duties and powers, and are distinguished from each other only 
hierarchically by the difference of the title by which they are 
designated.* ” 

Professor Martens says : 

“ Considered from the point of view of international law, all 
diplomatic agents, without regard to their class, are equal. 
This equality is shown by their all possessing, in like degree, 
all diplomatic rights. . . . Many writers have tried to in¬ 

fer from the rules of Vienna that ambassadors, as representing 
the person of their sovereign, have, in distinction from other 
diplomatic agents, the formal right of treating with the sov¬ 
ereign to whom they are sent, and of being received in au¬ 
dience by him at any time. We cannot admit this inference. 
As Prince Bismarck opportunely remarked, no ambassador has 
a right to demand a personal interview with the sovereign. 
The constitutional government of west-European monarchies 
compels ambassadors to treat with the Minister of F oreign 


* Droit International, i., p. 474. 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


I 12 

Affairs. Finally, it is untrue that ambassadors always repre¬ 
sent the personality of the monarch ; France, for example, 
appoints ambassadors, though its form of government is re¬ 
publican. . . According to the text of Art. JI. of the Vienna 

rules envoys are deprived of the representative character. In 
point of fact they could not perform their duties, if they did 
not represent their state. They really differ from ambassadors 
only in the title and in their lower salaries.” * 

Baron de Neumann says : 

“ The four classes have the diplomatic character, for they 
all represent the sovereign, and mere charges d’affaires often 
have to treat about interests as important, if not more so, than 
ambassadors themselves.”f 

Our system in this respect is a bad one, and contrary 
to our interests. We have no ambassadors, we have 
comparatively few envoys extraordinary and minis¬ 
ters plenipotentiary, but seem to prefer ministers res¬ 
ident, and even in the case of Paraguay and Uruguay 
retain the lowest rank, with its un-English name of 
charge d’affaires. Our interests certainly demand 
that in every country we should be represented by 

* Vblkerrecht. Das Internationale Recht der civilisirter Na- 
tioyien , von Friedrich von Martens. Berlin, 1886. Yol. ii. 
pp. 32-34. As Martens, besides being Professor in the Uni¬ 
versity of St. Petersburg, and member of the Institut du 
droit international, is a councillor of the Russian Foreign 
Office, his views may be taken to represent the opinions of the 
Russian government. 

f 

f Elements du droit des gens moderne Europeen par Le Baron 
Leopold de Neumann, p. 240. Paris, 1886. 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. I I 3 

agents of the highest title known or accepted there. 
The ministers of the United States should be able to 
take rank on equal terms with those of all other 
countries. This is not simply a question of rank and 
precedence, it has practical sides. At very many 
Foreign Offices the rule “ first come, first served ” is not 
observed ; but an envoy or a minister, though he may 
have been waiting hours in the ante-chamber for an 
important affair, must give place to an ambassador 
who has come in at the moment; and at Constanti¬ 
nople it is even expected that, should a minister be 
in conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs 
or the Grand Vizier, he should withdraw and wait 
whenever an ambassador may be announced. In some 
countries a different rule is observed. In Russia it 
has been for many years the custom for the minister 
to receive the foreign representatives in the order in 
which they arrive at his office, without regard to their 
rank. This rule was brought into force at Berlin, 
owing to a personal dispute between Mr. Bancroft, 
our minister, and the British ambassador. Mr. Ban¬ 
croft, after having waited a long time for an audience, 
was on one occasion obliged to yield to the British 
ambassador, who had that moment arrived. As the 
ambassador was personally disagreeable to the Chan¬ 
cellor, and Mr. Bancroft was a friend of his, a repre¬ 
sentation of the injustice done to the United States 

and its representative brought about a change of rule. 

8 


114 A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 

Nor are mere questions of rank and precedence to 
be entirely disregarded. The United States has every 
right to hold one of the first ranks among nations ; 
but according to the present system, by which the 
ambassador longest in service becomes the doyen of 
the diplomatic body, and therefore its president and 
spokesman on extraordinary occasions, which may 
make necessary a consultation or even a protest of 
that body in order to protect the rights of all for¬ 
eigners, the representative of the United States must 
always hold a subordinate position. If his opinions 
have weight, it is more through his personal influence, 
or the respect paid to his tact, discretion, and learning, 
than from the importance of the country he repre¬ 
sents. In many, perhaps in most cases of a diplomatic 
reunion, this is of slight consequence. But there are 
other cases where the minister of the United States, 
if he had more official authority, could manage to 
have matters arranged which ultimately affect our in¬ 
terests. At Constantinople, for instance, where there 
is an effort to undermine the treaty rights of all for¬ 
eigners, the ambassadors have of late taken up the 
habit of meeting one another in an unofficial way and 
in laying down rules, and in taking action on extra¬ 
territorial questions, which are then proposed to the 
rest of the diplomatic body; z>., in general the repre- 
tatives of the smaller states are asked for their ap¬ 
proval or rejection, but are given no chance to suggest 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 11 5 

or argue. Our government found it necessary, three 
or four years ago, to protest against this course, for 
it was beginning to be tacitly understood that only 
the ambassadors of what were called the Signatory 
Powers—that is, of those which had signed the Treaty 
of Berlin in 1878—should have any voice in matters 
which affected the interests of all foreigners in Tur¬ 
key. Our protest had the theoretical result of bring¬ 
ing about occasional conferences of all foreign repre¬ 
sentatives ; but the practice has remained much as 
before. 

There is, I am aware, another objection, more theo¬ 
retical than real, to the appointment of ambassadors, 
that as they are expected to represent the country 
socially in a far finer and grander style than minis¬ 
ters, very much larger salaries would be required. 
This objection, however, is more apparent than real; 
for while a certain amount of expense is necessary, it is 
just as necessary to a minister as to an ambassador who 
wishes to represent properly his country or carry on 
his business. Our ministers should in any case receive 
pay sufficient to enable them to live in the style 
becoming their rank, and not be obliged always to 
study how to make two ends meet, in countries where 
expenses are great and where a foreign representative 
is compelled to pay higher prices than those usually 
paid by the natives of the country. But of this later. 

Between the two classes of Envoy Extraordinary 


I 1 6 A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 

and Minister Plenipotentiary and of Minister Resident 
there is absolutely no difference of duties, functions, 
or privileges, scarcely even of ceremonial. The sole 
difference is one of rank and precedence. The social 
duties are exactly the same, and the increase in rank 
of the representatives in no way implies an increase 
of salary or expenditure. The question of mere rank 
is, however, not without importance. At the capitals 
of the smaller states of Europe, all the great powers, 
and nearly all the small ones, keep ministers pleni¬ 
potentiary; the United States maintain merely minis¬ 
ters resident, who take rank after most of their col¬ 
leagues, and at times after the representatives of petty 
principalities. Not only is the position of our min¬ 
ister a false one, but he is not as well regarded by the 
court to which he is sent, which resents the implica¬ 
tion that it is regarded as of too slight consequence 
to be treated as it prefers, and as it claims • to be 
treated, even where the politeness would not add a 
cent to our budget. To the countries of South and 
Central America, unless perhaps Brazil, ambassadors 
have never been sent; it is therefore easy for us, the 
preponderating power in this hemisphere, to be so rep¬ 
resented as to have a predominating influence. Un¬ 
fortunately we do not always do this, but we keep 
ministers resident and charges d’affaires in capitals 
where other states have envoys. The case is much 
the same in Asia. We were the first to open com- 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS. I 17 

mercial relations with Corea, and after a treaty had 
been made by Admiral Shufeldt, we sent an envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. As the 
first representative and of the highest rank, he took 
the lead of his colleagues, who arrived subsequently, 
in arranging the terms of diplomatic and consular 
intercourse. His counsels were respected and his ad¬ 
vice followed both by his colleagues and by the Co- 
rean government, inexperienced in dealing with for¬ 
eigners. A year or two afterward, through some freak 
of the subcommittee on appropriations, his rank was 
reduced to minister resident. From the head of the 
diplomatic body he went to the foot, and the Corean 
government, supposing naturally that his official con¬ 
duct had been disapproved, treated him accordingly. 
American influence in Corea was temporarily extin¬ 
guished. 

There is one simple solution for all such difficulties, 
to give the same title to all our chief representatives, 
— i.e., if we still refuse to appoint ambassadors, to 
abolish ministers resident and charges d’affaires, and 
have none but envoys extraordinary and ministers 
plenipotentiary. Questions of rank ought not to be 
complicated by questions of pay, which should be 
fixed according to the expenses incidental and neces¬ 
sary to the different posts, and it would be wise to 
appoint a man simply to the rank or office without 
specifying the particular place at which he is to re- 


I 1 8 A MERIC A JV DIEL OMA C V. 

side.* This would be assimilating his appointment 
to that of an army or a naval officer, and would allow 
the Department to assign him to any post where he 
might at the time do the best service, without the 
necessity of a new confirmation. It would then re¬ 
quire only a tenure of office during good behavior, 
and the possession of the necessary qualifications as a 
preliminary to appointment, to make our diplomatic 
system comply with all the requisites of the best civil 
service. 

It would seem that the time had come when the 
rules of Vienna might properly and profitably be re¬ 
vised. Useful as they have been in some ways, they 
were imposed on the world by the great powers of 
Europe seventy years ago, when the state of things 
was very different from now.t The United States 
was then a small and insignificant power ; there was 
no other independent state on this continent ; no 
diplomatic relations had been begun with the coun¬ 
tries of Asia. For such a revision it is, however, nec¬ 
essary to have the general consent of nations. We 
could not carry it through alone, but we might take 
the lead in proposing it. The change should be a 
very simple one: that there should be but one class 

* A recommendation to this effect was contained in Presi¬ 
dent Arthur’s annual message of December, 1884. 

f Even at the Congress of Vienna, Lord Castlereagh objected 
to the classification on general principles. 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


119 


of diplomatic agents instead of four classes, or, in other 
words, that all chief diplomatic representatives, or 
heads of missions, should be equal among themselves, 
both officially and ceremonially, no matter by what 
title their governments should choose to call them. 
This would make an actual instead of a fictitious 
equality between sovereign states, would simplify cere¬ 
monial, and would at the same time allow each state 
to use for domestic purposes such a hierarchy as 
seemed good to it. Such a proposal, if properly and 
cautiously presented, would probably be sure of the 
support of all the world, except some of the great 
powers of Europe ; but even they would not be slow 
to see its advantages. 

Among subordinate diplomatic representatives are 
commissioners and diplomatic agents, strictly so styled. 
Commissioners or commissaries are frequently sent 
for the settlement of special questions, as, for instance, 
indemnities to be paid after a war for losses incurred, 
or boundary disputes. They are not generally given 
either the rank or the privilege of diplomatic agents, 
even though they be in the diplomatic service. An¬ 
other class of commissioners, who are strictly political 
agents, are occasionally sent out without its being 
thought desirable to define exactly their rank, but 
they are usually received as ministers. Such are com¬ 
missioners to conclude a treaty, such as we have our¬ 
selves sent to China and Mexico on different occa- 


120 


AM ERIC AX DJ PL OMA C \ \ 


sions, and of this character is the English commissioner 
on the Hawaiian Islands, who ranks as a minister 
resident. In certain cases, with countries which are 
only semi-independent, such as Roumania and Ser¬ 
bia before the last war between Russia and Turkey, 
such as Bulgaria and Egypt now, it has been thought 
advisable to send persons empowered to perform dip¬ 
lomatic functions, but who, on account of the peculiar 
relations of the country to its suzerain, can be given 
no special title, and are therefore called simply “ dip¬ 
lomatic agents.” .The consul-general is usually ap¬ 
pointed to this post. The only diplomatic agent we 
have at present is in Egypt. One in Bulgaria is very 
necessary, for there are a number of resident Ameri¬ 
cans who need protection, and there is no one to af¬ 
ford it. There is not even a consul or consular agent 
of the United States anywhere in Bulgaria or Eastern 
Roumelia. These countries are still nominally in the 
jurisdiction of the minister and consul-general at 
Constantinople; but, as every one knows, the state of 
relations are such that these officials would have no 
way of communicating effectively with the Bulgarian 
government. Americans are therefore placed under 
the kindly care of the English diplomatic agent. In 
some cases it has been necessary to have recourse to 
Americans outside of Bulgaria, who happened to have 
influence there. 

Even in the lesser diplomatic posts our Government 


DIPLOMATIC 0FF1 ClALS. 


121 


has been as careless of the proprieties as in greater 
ones. An example may be given of our hap-hazard 
way of proceeding. In 1880 it was decided to ap¬ 
point a diplomatic representative at Bucarest, and the 
title chosen by Congress was “ Diplomatic Agent 
and Consul-General.” The person appointed to that 
post suggested to the State Department all the diffi¬ 
culties that might arise, as Roumania, being then in¬ 
dependent both in fact and by treaty, would insist on 
having a diplomatic representative called by one of 
the titles agreed to by the rules of the Congress of 
Vienna. He was, therefore, accredited directly to the 
sovereign, with the expectation that he might come in 
under the general clause of “ other persons accredited 
to sovereigns.” * This, however, the Roumanians 
refused to permit, and for some months he was re¬ 
fused any official recognition. They agreed to recog¬ 
nize him as consul-general, and unofficially as diplo¬ 
matic “ representative ” of the United States until a 
change could be made. It became necessary, there¬ 
fore, to alter his title to that of Charge d’Affaires ; 
and it was only when he received his commission as 
such, accredited not to the Prince but to the Minister 
of Foreign Affairs, that he was considered to belong 
to the diplomatic body and allowed to treat officially 
with the government. 

A legation or embassy comprises, in most cases, be- 
* Rules of Vienna, Art. I. 


I 22 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


sides the minister, one or more persons, known either 
as counsellors of embassy, secretaries of legation, or 
attaches. Of these only secretaries of legation are 
recognized by our system, and for many of our lega¬ 
tions none are appointed. At Paris, London, Berlin, 
Tokio, and Pekin there is a first and a second secre¬ 
tary. Attaches were formerly allowed, though they 
were appointed by the minister and not by the Gov¬ 
ernment. They received no pay, but were expected to 
assist in all the work of the legation. This has now 
been forbidden by act of Congress. In order prop¬ 
erly to do the work of the legation, it is frequently 
necessary to appoint more persons, but they are con¬ 
sidered only as clerks, without any diplomatic privi¬ 
lege or rank. In Spain, where there is a great deal of 
business, only one secretary is allowed, and it is nec¬ 
essary to employ a clerk. If we are ever to have any 
system in our management of foreign affairs it will be 
wise to have a number of young men, more even than 
would be absolutely necessary, who, by becoming ac¬ 
quainted with various countries, and with various 
languages, and by obtaining experience of diplomatic 
life, would be fit persons to be sent as agents, either 
regularly in the career or in any case of emergency. 
It would be well even for the Government to appoint 
several secretaries of legation at large, and in certain 
cases attaches, who should receive little or no salary 
until they became secretaries of legation. There are 


DIPL OMA TIC OFF ICIA L S. 12 j 

always young men of independent means desirous 
of such positions, and perfectly able and willing to 
do the necessary work. Such appointments, however, 
should be regulated by the Department of State, 
and not by the minister alone, and the necessary 
qualifications should be rigorously demanded. 

During the absence of a minister, the senior secre¬ 
tary of legation acts as charge d’affaires ad interim , 
without special credentials ; and by our laws he is en¬ 
titled to an allowance equal to half the salary of the 
minister, which is paid separately and not deducted 
from the minister’s salary. His salary as secretary of 
legation ceases for that time. In the English service, 
and in some others, the secretary of legation receives, 
in addition to his own salary, an allowance, paid out 
of the minister’s salary, varying from five to thirty 
dollars per day. As a special exception the English 
secretary in Paris, when acting as charge d’affaires, 
is accredited with the title of minister resident. 

The qualifications for employment in the diplo¬ 
matic service consist in most other countries of a 
knowledge of French, and, generally, of at least one 
other language ; a good acquaintance with history, 
treaties, public and international law. One other 
qualification is absolutely necessary, at all events in 
civilized countries, that the person appointed should 
be a gentleman, that is, acquainted with the ways of 
the world and the usages and manners of the best so- 


124 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


ciety in each capital in which he will be expected to 
move—that of the governing classes. I do not mean 
that what is called good birth, or belonging to a well- 
known family should be essential, although the son 
or grandson of a President of the United States, for 
example, would always have more credit and influence 
in the place to which he was sent than one of whom 
nothing was known. Considerations of this kind 
make it difficult to recommend the results of a simple 
examination as showing the qualifications necessary 
for a diplomatic agent. Temper, manners, position, 
tact, shrewdness must all enter into the composition 
of the agent best qualified to do his country service. 
I remember a Russian diplomat saying to me that 
after they had all passed the diplomatic examination, 
each candidate was in turn received by Prince Gort- 
chakof, who, all other things being equal, judged a 
great deal of his fitness for the post by the manner in 
which he entered the room and addressed him. 

I have mentioned a knowledge of French as being 
absolutely necessary. This is certainly true in all 
European countries. It might be sufficient for a dip¬ 
lomat to have a good knowledge of the language of 
the country to which he is sent, especially in South 
America, but as other foreigners and colleagues will 
often know nothing but French, and as it is necessary 
to keep on friendly relations with them, this is also 
essential. French is the generally received language 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


125 


of diplomacy in Europe. In China and Japan Eng¬ 
lish is more usually the language. In South Amer¬ 
ica Spanish is used in all countries except Brazil. It 
is the habit of both England and the Ehiited States, 
however, to use English as the official language, and 
for their ministers to write in that tongue all notes 
and despatches sent to the government to which they 
are accredited. In most cases it is found convenient 
to accompany the official English notes with an un¬ 
official French translation, in order to save time and 
to obtain speedy answers, as not all Foreign Offices 
have an English translator at hand. French is also 
the general language of treaties, but it has become 
common for a treaty to be drawn up in the two lan¬ 
guages of the two countries which make it, either text 
being considered as official. For this, of course, very 
careful translations and accurate knowledge of the 
language are necessary. Just after the Franco-Ger¬ 
man war an attempt was made to introduce German 
as a diplomatic language, and the German ambassador 
at St. Petersburg stated his intention to Prince Gort- 
chakof to write to him in the future in that language. 
“ Certainly,” said the Prince, “ we all understand Ger¬ 
man. Of course you must expect our replies to be in 
Russian.” Nothing more was heard of the proposition. 

Among other things a minister should be a man 
who has already lived in foreign countries, and is to 
some degree acquainted with their usages and cus- 


126 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


toms, even if he has not already been in the service 
and acquired a knowledge of the rules of diplomacy. 
It would be better that he should be a native of 
America than a naturalized citizen, and in any case 
he should not be sent back to the country of his 
birth. Persons of foreign birth have been at times 
in the diplomatic service of all countries, owing to 
certain special qualifications or to peculiar circum¬ 
stances. St. Saphorin, who was the Hanoverian and 
English envoy to Vienna at the beginning of the 
last century, was of Swiss origin ; so is also Baron 
Jomini, the son of the celebrated writer on war, who, 
although not holding a diplomatic position, has been 
for a long time one of the high officials of the Russian 
Foreign Office. Owing to the inter-connections of the 
German States it has not been uncommon for a na¬ 
tive of one to be an official in the service of another ; 
and in this way, after the war of 1866, Count Beust, 
who had been Minister of Foreign Affairs in Saxony, 
was taken to Vienna in the same capacity. Still, it is 
better to avoid this. A native citizen always knows 
the interests of his own country better than a foreign- 
born citizen can, unless the latter has come there in 
his early youth. There are, of course, exceptions ; but 
no man should ever be appointed minister abroad who 
has left his own country for political reasons. We 
are too apt to think that all countries should pattern 
themselves after our model, and are either unable or 


DIPL OMA TIC OFF ICIA L S. 


127 


unwilling to take note of their prejudices. But what 
should we have thought if, after the close of the War 
of the Rebellion, Mr. Benjamin had been sent to 
Washington as the English minister? It is doubtful 
whether our Government would have received him ; 
and even had he been received, he would scarcely 
have been treated with politeness. We should never 
forget, much as we may sympathize with a political 
exile, that he may be treated in the same way should 
he be sent back as minister to the country of his birth. 
It is not so much a question as to what is considered 
proper by us, as to what is agreeable to the country 
where the minister is sent; for he is not sent to repre¬ 
sent us in the sense of being in any way a typical 
American, but in order to transact successfully such 
business as we may have to do. For that reason there 
are serious objections to the appointment of negroes. 
To Liberia it does not matter much ; although there 
is not the slightest need of a mission to that petty 
state. But the government of Hayti, although com¬ 
posed generally of mulattoes or negroes, prefers a 
white representative from other countries. Hayti 
wishes to be considered of importance in the world, 
and thinks that we are treating her with contempt in 
sending a minister of her own race. Other foreign 
powers who have relations with Hayti send white 
persons, why, therefore, should not the United States 
do so, they argue. 


128 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


There is but one profession that is generally agreed 
as disqualifying men from holding these offices ; that 
is the clerical profession. In old times the govern¬ 
ments of various countries were much in the hands 
of the clergy. Very many ministers of state as well 
as ambassadors were prelates, or at least clergymen. 
Nowadays this is not so, except in the case of the 
nuncios of the Pope, who is a spiritual sovereign. 
Clerical diplomatists have probably not been sent 
from any country except the United States since the 
French Revolution. The last English clergyman ap¬ 
pointed to diplomatic office was Mr. Robinson, who 
after holding several preferment's became Bishop of 
London. His career, however, was a peculiar one. 
He had been domestic chaplain to the British min¬ 
ister at Stockholm at a time when domestic chaplains 
were considered of such low rank that they generally 
married the lady’s maids. At one time, in the absence 
of the minister and of any secretary of legation, he was 
the only man who could be left as the charge d’affaires. 
He displayed much ability and tact, and succeeded in 
ingratiating himself with King Charles XII. to such 
a degree that he was finally appointed minister; and 
as such accompanied the king on several campaigns. 
His last appearance in diplomatic life was as one of 
plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty of Utrecht. 

V ith the exception of a few Catholic countries and 
England, even the higher clergy do not generally ap- 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 


129 


pear in society; and a clerical diplomatist would be 
an anomaly. It might be that under special circum¬ 
stances a clerical diplomatist would be of use in affect¬ 
ing public opinion ; and such was the case at the out¬ 
break of our war, when Bishop Mcllvaine, of Ohio, 
was sent to England in order to conciliate the church 
sentiment of that country ; and Archbishop Hughes, 
of New York, was despatched on a like errand to 
the Catholics of England and France. Neither of 
them, however, had any credentials or diplomatic 
powers. Similar cases might occur when it would be 
proper to send a high Catholic clerical dignitary on a 
special mission to some Catholic country where the 
church still maintains much power. But it cannot be 
expected that to send a Protestant clergyman, as 
minister to a Catholic country, where he is regarded 
as a heretic, would have a good effect. Apart from 
the disabilities which attend him simply because he is 
a clergyman, he has, moreover, the great temptations 
of his status—to preach, to hold prayer-meetings, and 
to appear in his capacity of clergyman in a way dis¬ 
liked by the authorities to whom he is accredited. 
So also at times women have been given secret polit¬ 
ical missions, but they have not yet been publicly or 
usually employed. 

A diplomatic official is in no way a political one in 
the ordinary sense. The politics of every country are 
governed almost entirely by internal considerations. 

9 


130 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


That is especially the case with us. We ought to 
consider foreign ministers in the light of lawyers en¬ 
trusted with a brief to uphold all the interests of the 
country apart from those of any political party, and 
ready to receive instructions from their clients, of 
whatever political opinion or religion they may be. 
In employing a lawyer, no one, other things being 
equal, would think of inquiring where he went to 
church, or for whom he had voted ; one would only 
ask what his capacity was for the case with which he 
was to be intrusted, and how he was likely to impress 
the court before which he was to argue. So it should 
be with governments. Even in countries where the 
foreign policy makes a dividing line between parties, 
it has been found advantageous to keep in office 
trained and experienced diplomatic officials, without re¬ 
gard to their personal political preferences. They are 
found in practice to serve as well, and generally much 
better. An English minister will carry out the instruc¬ 
tions of his government with equal vigor whether 
he belongs to the party in office or not. There may 
be exceptions in the case of countries which waver 
between two or three different forms of government. 
It was very natural that France, after obtaining a 
republican government, should not wish to be repre¬ 
sented abroad by men who were prominent Impe¬ 
rialists, because the republic was desirous of concil¬ 
iating the good opinion of European sovereigns, and 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS. I 3 I 

wished its representatives to be thoroughly in accord 
with it. But in our own case, where the Government 
is well established, and where the questions with which 
a minister has to deal are diplomatic and not dynastic 
or governmental ones, it should make no difference 
whether a minister abroad is a Democrat or a Repub¬ 
lican. If he be fit to represent us under the rule of 
one party, he is fit to do so under the rule of another. 
There is no reason in the nature of things why, when 
a new party or a new administration comes into 
power, the ministers appointed by the preceding one 
should be recalled. They represent the Government 
and the interests of the United States, not the Presi¬ 
dent, nor the interests of any political party. 

Even in ordinary business a man selects as his 
agent, especially in delicate matters, a man of tact, 
knowledge, and discretion, who will be well received 
by those with whom he has to deal. How much 
more should this be the case in public affairs! The 
only proper way of regarding our diplomatic posts is 
that so tersely expressed by President Cleveland : 
“ Public office is a public trust.” 

In speaking of the true purposes of diplomacy, F. 
von Martens well says: 

“ As organs of international administration in the sphere of 
the political interests of States, diplomatists can only reach the 
high aim set before them when they learn to recognize and 
understand thoroughly the cultural and political aspirations 


132 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C V. 


of the people whom they serve and of the people where they 
exercise their functions. Insight into these aspirations and a 
just appreciation of them can alone secure the peaceful de¬ 
velopment of the external relations of States, and can alone 
guarantee the success and enduring results of diplomatic 
work.” * 

Our diplomatic are appointed in the same way as 
our consular officials; that is, by the President, with 
the consent of the Senate. After he has accepted the 
appointment, and has taken the oath of allegiance, a 
minister is given by law not more than thirty days, 
with salary, for the purpose of receiving his instruc¬ 
tions. These instructions are, for the most part, con¬ 
tained in a pamphlet printed by the State Depart¬ 
ment, containing only the general rules which regulate 
the conduct of a minister, and especially his relations 
to the State Department and the Treasury. This pam¬ 
phlet is considered secret, though it has nothing in it 
that could not be public to all the world ; and indeed 
so secret have these personal instructions been thought 
at various times by the State Department, that when 
a new edition is published the old copies are destroyed, 
and not even the Department has a complete series 
of them from the beginning. In case important and 
intricate business should await a minister at his post 
he would be expected to familiarize himself with the 
history and affairs of the legation before leaving this 


* Volkerrecht, ii., p. 65. 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 


country, and might possibly receive definite instruc¬ 
tions in writing. In the early times of the Govern¬ 
ment such written instructions for specific cases were 
the rule; but they are now rarely given. The min¬ 
ister is furnished with credentials—that is, a letter 
from the President to the sovereign or head of the 
government to which he is going, to the effect that 
the President, reposing perfect confidence in the zeal, 

ability, and discretion of A-■ B-, has appointed 

him as minister of the United States at such a place; 
and that he hopes all faith and credit will be given him 
when he speaks for the United States; and especially 
when he reiterates the assurance of respect, sympathy, 
etc. These letters are always addressed, when coming 
from a republic, to “ Great and Good Friend,” and 
are signed “Your good friend,” followed by the Presi¬ 
dent’s name and countersigned by the Secretary of 
State. 

No extra compensation is allowed to a minister for 
his journey, but he is allowed to receive his salary 
during his transit to his post for a certain number of 
days, fixed by the State Department, varying from 
seventy days for Pekin to fifteen days for Hayti. 

The general rule in other countries is, that before 
the actual appointment of a minister, the government 
to which it is proposed to send him should be pri¬ 
vately asked whether it is willing to accept him. 
There are often personal or political reasons why a 




134 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


minister is not acceptable in a particular country, 
while he might be perfectly acceptable in many 
others. This gives the foreign government the op¬ 
portunity of refusing him without publicity, and 
therefore does not work harm to the minister himself. 
Such refusals are not uncommon. Recently, for ex¬ 
ample, the German government, it is stated on good 
authority, refused three English ambassadors who 
were proposed before the present one was accepted. 
Had they been publicly rejected it might, and prob¬ 
ably would, have interfered with their usefulness else¬ 
where. Among other well-known examples, the King 
of Sardinia, in 1820, refused to receive Baron de Mar¬ 
tens as Prussian Minister, alleging that his wife was 
the daughter of a French regicide; and, in 1847, the 
King of Hanover refused to receive as Prussian Min¬ 
ister, Count von Westphalen, because he was a Cath¬ 
olic. Even with our own ministers, one was refused 
at Vienna because he had publicly sympathized with 
the Hungarians before they had made a success¬ 
ful revolution. Another was refused by Italy because, 
in arguing for the maintenance of the temporal power 
of the Pope, he had said disagreeable things against 
the Italian government. If the acceptance of these 
ministers had been privately asked beforehand, the 
refusal would have been much easier and less disagree- 
able to the gentlemen in question. There is probably 
an historical reason why our Government did not at 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


135 


first ask for the acceptance of its representatives. The 
first ministers whom we sent abroad were sent while 
we were still considered as rebels, and had not actually 
gained our independence. After that, before the days 
of steam and electricity, the communications between 
America and Europe, owing to wars, were so slow and 
uncertain that it might have required six months to 
obtain an answer. Foreign governments, in treating 
with us, have naturally followed our system. If we 
do not ask for the acceptance of a minister, neither 
do they. But in earlier times they always conformed 
to their own usage, so far as to inform our ministers 
abroad of the intention of appointing certain persons 
as ministers here, and expressing the hope that they 
would be agreeable to us. Our government has more 
than once done the same thing. It is stated that a 
formal application was made to the French govern¬ 
ment in 1869 to receive Mr. Washburne as our Minis¬ 
ter at Paris ; but there seem to be no proofs of this on 
file in the State Department. It is, however, certain 
that in 1871 or 1872, the French government officially 
asked for the acceptance, as Minister in Washington, 
of Mr. Jules Ferry, who was agreed to by Mr. Fish. 
His nomination being changed, the name of the Mar¬ 
quis de Noailles was officially proposed and accepted 
in the same way. Now that rapid communication 
has been established between America and Europe, 
the reasons once valid have ceased, and there is no 


136 


A MERIC A X DIPL OMA C \' 


excuse for our not conforming to the general usage 
in this respect, at least so far as to communicate the 
nomination confidentially, a sufficient time before its 
promulgation to allow of objection.* 

It may be mentioned here that our government has 
never been slow to use its right of asking for the re¬ 
call of, or of sending away a foreign minister who be¬ 
comes in any way obnoxious. The recall of Mr. 
Genet, the French Minister, was asked in 1793 ; that 
of Mr. Jackson, the British Minister, in 1809; that 
of Mr. Poussin, the French Minister, in 1849; Mr. 
Crampton, the British Minister, was given his pass¬ 
ports in 1856; and intercourse ceased with Mr. Cata- 
cazy, the Russian Minister in 1871. There are, per¬ 
haps, other cases, where a mere hint was sufficient to 
effect the minister’s recall, without publicity. 

On arriving at his post the minister’s first duty is 
to inform the Minister for Foreign Affairs of his ar¬ 
rival, and of his character, and to request an interview 
for the purpose of asking an audience for the purpose 
of presenting his credentials to the head of the state. 
He is usually received at once by the minister, and 
by the sovereign as soon as an interview can be ar¬ 
ranged, though in case of absence or illness there may 
be a delay of weeks, if not of months. Etiquette, 
however, demands that the audience for presenting 

* On this subject see Cours de Droit Diplomatique , by P. 
Pracier-Fodere, I., pp. 347-354. 


DIPLOMA 1'IC OFFICIALS. 


137 


credentials should take place as early as possible. 
These audiences are either public or private. In 
the first the minister is accompanied by the Minister 
of Foreign Affairs, generally followed by his own 
secretaries, and goes to the palace in more or less 
state, according to the customs of the place; for these 
vary greatly in different capitals. For an ambassador 
a state carriage is always sent. This is not always 
the case with the minister in a capital where ambas¬ 
sadors also reside, it being considered desirable to 
draw distinctions of ceremony between the two. In 
small countries, where there are no ambassadors, a 
state carriage is usually sent for the minister, in some 
cases accompanied by an escort. At a formal audi¬ 
ence all parties are standing: the minister enters, is 
introduced to the sovereign by the Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, addresses a few words to him stating his char¬ 
acter, and presents his letters of credence. These 
the sovereign takes, sometimes goes through the for¬ 
mality of reading them, and replies briefly to the 
minister. After the formal part of the audience is 
over, there is generally a friendly conversation of a 
few moments, and the ceremony ends in much the 
same way as it began. In some countries it is ex¬ 
pected that a formal speech will be made by the min¬ 
ister to the sovereign, and a formal reply made. In 
such cases the speech is written out in advance and 
given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who returns 


138 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 

a copy of the reply before the audience takes place. 
This is in order to prevent embarrassment, as well 
as to see that nothing unpleasant be said. In some 
countries, as in Russia, a minister is nearly always re¬ 
ceived in private audience. He goes to the palace 
alone, is met by the Grand Master of Ceremonies, 
conducted to the Emperor, introduced into his room, 
and is left alone with him. After a word or two the 
Emperor requests the minister to be seated ; and the 
conversation is informal. 

Mr. John Quincy Adams remarked in 1809, after 
one of these ceremonies : “ The formalities of these 

court presentations are so trifling and insignificant in 
themselves, and so important in the eyes of princes 
and courtiers, that they are much more embarrassing 
to an American, than business of real importance. It 
is not safe or prudent to despise them, nor practica¬ 
ble for a person of rational understanding to value 
them.” 

iYfter the presentation of his letters of credence it 
is then the duty of a minister, if accredited to a sov¬ 
ereign, to ask for presentation to the Oueen or Em¬ 
press and to the Princes and Princesses. Such pres¬ 
entations, where the royal family is numerous, may 
be scattered over a long series of months. Immedi¬ 
ately after presenting his credentials the minister 
makes ceremonial calls on the various ministers of 
the country to which he is accredited, and to other 


DIPL OMA TIC OPTIC IA L S. 


139 


high officials, of whom a list is generally given him 
by the Master of Ceremonies. He also makes formal 
visits to all of his colleagues, when he is expected not 
simply to leave a card, but to go in if they are at 
home. It is generally the rule that a minister or an 
envoy should not call for the first time upon any am¬ 
bassador unless he has first written a note asking when 
he can be received. We mention this formal part of 
the minister’s business because slight breaches of eti¬ 
quette at the beginning are often ascribed to ignorance 
and create an unfavorable impression. Etiquette dif¬ 
fers very greatly in the different capitals of Europe 
in small particulars; and it would be unsafe for a 
diplomat of even great experience to appear at a new 
court without informing himself exactly of the usages 
of the place. In case the secretary of legation be not 
thoroughly acquainted with such usages, they can 
always be learned from experienced colleagues, gen¬ 
erally from the one who has been there the longest, 
and therefore the dean of the diplomatic body, who 
is always ready to welcome a new-comer. 

The diplomatic officials of nearly all countries wear 
a uniform, generally consisting of a coat more or less 
richly embroidered with gold, a cocked hat, and 
sword. By a resolution of Congress passed in 1867 
the diplomatic officials of the United States are for¬ 
bidden to wear “ any uniform or official costume not 
previously authorized by Congress;” and although 


140 


A MERICA N DIPL DMA C }'. 


the wording of the resolution is ambiguous, and might 
be held to prevent a minister’s wearing any clothes at 
all, he appears in ordinary evening dress, unless, hav¬ 
ing been a military or naval officer, he wear the uni¬ 
form prescribed for his rank. The history of this 
resolution is somewhat curious. At the beginning 
of our Government the costume worn by men in 
society admitted of much greater variety than at 
present in color, cut, and ornament; and therefore 
there was no special distinction, except in point of 
richness, between dress worn at court and on ordinary 
occasions. When our mission went to Ghent in 1814, 
for the conclusion of the treaty with Great Britain, a 
change had come over European usages; and it was 
found to be advisable to adopt some uniform to mark 
the rank of the members of the mission. They agreed 
to wear a blue coat, slightly embroidered with gold, 
with white breeches, white silk stockings, and gold 
knee-buckles and shoe-buckles, a sword, and a small 
cocked hat with a black cockade. For grand occa¬ 
sions this uniform was made somewhat richer. In 
1823 Mr. John Ouincy Adams, then Secretary of 
State, wrote to our ministers abroad recommending 
the use of the uniform worn by the mission of 
Ghent, sending a formal description of it as well as 
an engraved plate. During the administration of 
General Jackson, in 1829, this uniform was changed. 
It was made simpler and cheaper, consisting of a black 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS. 141 

coat with a gold star on each side of the collar, black 
or white knee-breeches, a three cornered chapeau-bras 
with a black cockade and a gold eagle, and a steel- 
mounted sword with a white scabbard. This dress 
was not prescribed by the President, but was sug¬ 
gested as an appropriate and convenient uniform 
dress for the diplomatic agents of the United States. 
It is said that not all ministers conformed to this 
recommendation, and that some of them appeared in 
more brilliant uniforms suited to their respective 
tastes. Some suggestions were made on this subject 
to the Department of State; and Mr. Marcy, on 
June 1, 1853, issued a circular withdrawing all previ¬ 
ous instructions, and recommending the appearance at 
court of our ministers in the simple dress of an Ameri¬ 
can citizen, “ whenever it could be done without 
detriment to the public interest.” Mr. Marcy cited 
the example of Dr. Franklin, who had appeared at 
the French court in very simple dress; but it is now 
well known that this was not owing to any love of 
simplicity on the part of Franklin, but merely that on 
a certain occasion his presence was so much desired at 
court, when he had no clothes in which he considered 
it fit to appear, that he was requested to come in what¬ 
ever he happened to be wearing at the moment. In 
compliance with these instructions, several of our 
ministers attempted to go to court in plain evening 
dress. To Mr. Belmont, at The Hague, no objection 


142 


A MERIC A A r DIPL OMA C Y. 


was made, although it was evidently preferred that 
he should comply with the usages of the place. 
Mr. Mason presented his credentials to the Emperor 
Napoleon in civil dress, but subsequently adopted a 
simple uniform, which he always wore on ceremonial 
occasions. At Stockholm, while the King expressed 
his perfect willingness personally to receive Mr. 
Schroeder in plain dress, he said, “ The etiquette of 
my house is subject to regulations which cannot be 
waived for one in preference to others. In audience 
for business I will receive him in any dress his Govern¬ 
ment may prescribe; but in the society of my family 
and on occasions of court no one can be received but 
in court dress, in conformity with the established cus¬ 
toms.” Mr. Vroom, at Berlin, was told that “ his 
Majesty would not consider an appearance before him 
without costume as respectful.” Mr. Buchanan was 
excluded from the diplomatic tribune at the opening 
of Parliament, because he refused to wear court dress; 
and when subsequently he insisted on wearing civilian 
dress, Sir Edward Cust told him “ that he hoped he 
would not appear at court in the dress he wore upon 
the street, but would wear something indicating his 
official position.” He therefore appeared at court in 
ordinary evening dress, with a plain black sword and 
a cocked hat. Mr. H. S. Sanford, who had been act¬ 
ing as charge d’affaires at Paris, until the arrival of 
Mr. Mason, carried out Mr. Marcy’s instructions lit- 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIA L S. 


143 


erally, and adopted an evening dress. When Mr. 
Mason, as has just been mentioned, returned to the 
use of uniform, Mr. Sanford complained of this to 
the Department of State, and offered his resignation. 
His conduct in the matter was approved by Mr. 
Marcy, but his resignation was accepted. Six years 
afterward, in January, i860, when Mr. Faulkner was 
about proceeding to Paris, Mr. Sanford wrote to Gen¬ 
eral Cass referring to the previous correspondence, 
ridiculing Mr. Mason’s course, and asking that Mr. 
Faulkner should be instructed to wear civilian dress. 
Mr. Sanford in this letter confounded two things, 
court dress and diplomatic uniform ; for even in coun¬ 
tries where court dress is required, there is a diplo¬ 
matic uniform different from that worn by other offi¬ 
cials; and the example of the Turkish ambassador, 
brought up by him, was by no means to the point. 
Turkish diplomats always wear a diplomatic uniform, 
and by no means the ordinary Turkish dress, which 
can be worn in the presence of the Sultan. In com¬ 
pliance with a resolution of the Senate, the papers on 
this subject were printed shortly afterward.* No 
further action was taken until March, 1867, when by 
the joint efforts of Senator Sumner and General 
Banks, the resolution in question was forced through 
Congress. The debate was remarkable chiefly for 

* Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, 36th Congress, 1st Session, 
April 2, i860. 


144 


A MERIC AN DIPL OMA C Y. 


those crude expressions of Chauvinism in which dem- 
agogues delight to indulge, except for the very sensi¬ 
ble and practical remarks of General Schenck, who, 
in conjunction with Mr. Pruyn, attempted to amend 
the resolution so as to give the State Department 
power to fix the exact dress to be worn. The resolu¬ 
tion, in point of fact, does not accomplish what was 
intended by it—to prevent the wearing of court dress 
in London, almost the only place where it is worn ; for 
court dress is neither a “ uniform ” nor an “ official 
costume.” 

The objection to plain evening dress is not its sim¬ 
plicity, but because being the only persons, as a gen¬ 
eral rule, at any court ceremony in evening dress, ex¬ 
cept the waiters and servants, our representatives are 
unpleasantly conspicuous. They are much more 
comfortable in a hot and crowded room than if they 
wore a heavy, closely buttoned uniform ; but they are 
the subject of remark, not so much on the part of 
their colleagues, who profess to envy them their ease, 
but from other persons unaccustomed with our usages ; 
so that when at court they generally feel in an awk¬ 
ward and false position, much as a private gentle¬ 
man would, who by some accident found himself at a 
dinner or evening party in a morning dress. It is 
said that the gentleman who is chiefly responsible for 
this rule experienced himself the discomfort of it; 
and that, although he wore civilian dress on his first 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS . 


145 


appearance as minister at Brussels, he subsequently 
obtained a commission as major-general of militia 
in Minnesota, which allowed him to appear in uni¬ 
form. All that is desirable is some plain and incon¬ 
spicuous mark of the official character. The blue 
dress-coat with brass buttons, formerly in vogue, and 
so well known to us from Daniel Webster, would be 
amply sufficient. 

The next duty of a minister, after he has complied 
with the formalities of his reception, is, of course, to 
acquaint himself with the affairs of his legation ; to 
learn their actual situation, and to be ready to pro¬ 
ceed to business. He should then begin to inform 
himself about the country in which he is to live: its 
history, laws, usages, manners, and customs; to make 
acquaintances not only among officials, but even 
among private persons ; and to endeavor, as far as is in 
his power, to become a component part of the society 
of the place. As to political personages, he should, so 
far as the feeling and prejudices of persons in power 
allow, become acquainted also with statesmen who 
are out of office, and with members of the opposition. 
He should not, however, fall into the other extreme, 
and cultivate solely the opposition. There are capi¬ 
tals, and Paris and Bucarest might be mentioned as 
two extremes, where the members of th-e government 
are not generally people in the highest society; and 
it is a great mistake, although ministers sometimes fall 


IO 


146 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


into it, to cultivate the best society of the place, use¬ 
ful as that may be, to the exclusion of the political 
leaders; and to espouse the prejudices and quarrels of 
the opposition against the government. 

One of the great duties of a minister is hospitality; 
and this is not a question of display ; but for a minis¬ 
ter to be useful he must make acquaintance with the 
leading persons of the country, receive them at his 
house, be on good terms with them, and prepare him¬ 
self for the time when he has some important end to 
gain. Much more is done by private conversations, 
amiable talks over a dinner-table, or after, than can be 
done by official despatches. Where very great princi¬ 
ples are at stake, it is necessary to write formal notes 
and to put the whole negotiations into permanent 
form ; but for all the ordinary incidents arising be¬ 
tween two countries, a few frank words between peo¬ 
ple who know, appreciate, and understand each other, 
are worth far more than formal documents. A good 
diplomatist will always seek to avoid issues, by ar¬ 
ranging a satisfactory settlement without a formal 
discussion. For such informal proceedings mutual 
confidence, and secrecy are absolutely necessary. A 
written despatch must be replied to, and, if expressed 
in anything but the most suave language, is apt to 
call out a reply. Each side feels it a duty to main¬ 
tain his own case. Take an example : A ship-captain 
arriving at a port of Spain, having endeavored to 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICI A IS. 147 

conform to all the regulations, and supposing that he 
was correct in his action, was fined, for some supposed 
infraction of the customs rules, a sum sufficient to 
confiscate his vessel and to ruin him. The whole 
proceeding was illegal on the part of the Spanish 
authorities, and it required only a few words from 
the Charge d’Affaires, in a conversation with the 
Minister of Finance, to arrange the matter with¬ 
out publicity and without a word in writing. If the 
official formalities had been observed, and a note 
had been written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
which would then have been referred to the Minister 
of Finance, and then to the officials of the customs 
department, the affair would have lasted for months, 
and very possibly the Spanish officials would have 
discovered some technical means for justifying their 
conduct. Take a contrary case : One of our recent 
ministers was unsuccessful and unhappy in his mission 
at Berlin. It may be that in no case would the Ger¬ 
man government have entirely met the wishes of the 
United States. But the minister, ignorant of diplo¬ 
matic usage, had not felt the necessity of forming an 
intimate acquaintance with German statesmen, and 
when he received an instruction from our Government, 
considered that he had done all that was necessary 
when he had put that in the form of a note to the Min¬ 
ister of Foreign Affairs, and had sent it by his messen¬ 
ger. In the case of the Lasker resolution, a few words 


148 


A ME RICA A r DITL OMA C Y. 


would have removed all difficulties, have prevented 
two governments from coming almost to the verge of 
hostilities, and have kept our relations with Germany 
in that friendly state where they had always before 
been. There is an interesting instance of this kind 
much earlier in our history. The relations of the 
minister, General Armstrong, to the French Govern¬ 
ment, were in 1810 very cool, and hints were given to 
some of our other ministers abroad, with the hope 
that they would be repeated and he would be re¬ 
called, as indeed he eventually was. “ C’est d’abord 
un tres-galant homme,” said the ambassador: “ but 
he never shows himself, and upon every little occa¬ 
sion, when by a verbal explanation with the minister 
he might obtain anything, he presents peevish notes.” 
“ They did not impeach his integrity, but he was 
morose, and captious and petulant.” * 

A minister should also be hospitable to his own 
countrymen. It is often said that no American min¬ 
ister is bound by his instructions or by the laws to be 
hospitable to travelling or resident Americans; but 
usage and even policy require this. It is much better 
for the minister personally that he should conciliate 
the good-will of travelling Americans, no matter what 
rank in society they may hold ; and it is also better 
among the people to whom he is sent, that he is 
known to treat his own countrymen well, and not to 
* Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, ii., p. 151. 


DIPL OMA TIC OFF I Cl A IS. 


149 


be ashamed of them. If, therefore, a minister have 
sufficient private means, for his salary would never 
be enough to keep an open house, he will find it to 
the advantage not only of the Government but of 
himself in every way. Where attempts are made to 
do this, they should not be by halves. I have known 
a legation in a European capital where the minister’s 
wife received the calls of Americans on one day, and 
those of diplomats and the society of the place on 
another day; and while many dinners were given, 
care was taken not to mix the society. The result 
was that no one cared for the hospitality. The 
Americans felt vexed at their being not thought good 
enough to meet the society of the place ; and the 
diplomats and young men of society often regretted 
that they were deprived of meeting pretty and charm¬ 
ing American girls. The minister defended this 
course on the ground that the society of the capital 
was exclusive, and did not care to meet Americans. 
Whatever they might be in their own houses, they 
certainly did expect to see Americans at the Ameri¬ 
can legation ; and never, in an experience of many 
countries, have I witnessed this separation of the 
sheep and goats in any but an American legation. 

If great stress seems to be laid upon the social 
duties of a minister, it is because the experience of all 
countries has shown the very great value of social in¬ 
tercourse for the political ends which a minister has 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


150 

in view. Lord Palmerston expressed this very well 
when he was examined by a committee of the House 
of Commons with regard to diplomatic salaries. He 
said : 

“ Now in order to preserve good relations with a country, it 
is not sufficient simply to have a person living in town as 
cheaply as he can afford to exist, because the social position 
of your representative is a very important element in his power 
to be useful. In regard to his intercourse with the ministers 
of the country, great facilities and great means of good under¬ 
standing are afforded by easy social intercourse, which can 
only possibly be obtained by his being able to receive them, 
as well as also being received by them. Again, it is of great 
importance that your ambassador should be in habits of social 
intercourse with the public men not in office ; that he should 
have the means of receiving them, becoming acquainted with 
their views, and explaining to them the views and policy of his 
own co’untry. Therefore I think that it is of great importance 
to this country that your representative should be in such an 
easy position with regard to money affairs as may enable him 
to receive hospitably persons of all kinds, and I may say also 
of different nations.”* 

Mr. Monroe, when Secretary of State, had used 
much the same language thirty years before. 

“ Is it necessary that the United States should be represented 
with foreign Powers ? That has long ceased to be a question. 
Shall they maintain a proper station there, not assuming, but 
dignified, such as the general expectation and common opinion 
of mankind have given them ? That has never been a question. 
The character of the country, if not its rank, is in some degree 

* Senate Ex. Doc., No. 93, 32d Congress, 1st Session, p. 8. 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


1 5 1 

affected by that which is maintained by its ministers abroad. 
Their utility in all the great objects of their mission is essentially 
dependent on it. A minister can be useful only by filling his 
place with credit in the diplomatic corps, and in the corre¬ 
sponding circle of society in the country in which he resides, 
which is the best in every country. By taking the proper 
ground, if he possesses the necessary qualifications and is fur¬ 
nished with adequate means, he will become acquainted with 
all that passes, and from the highest and most authentic sources. 
Inspiring confidence by reposing it in those who deserve it, and 
by an honorable deportment in other respects, he will have 
much influence, especially in what relate to his own country. 
Deprive him of the necessary means to sustain this ground, 
separate him from the circle to which he belongs, and he is 
reduced to a cipher. He may collect intelligence from adven¬ 
turers and spies, but it will be of comparatively little value ; 
and in other respects he had as well not be there.” * 

An investigation of the salaries needful to diplo¬ 
matic officers was made by our own Government in 
1851. Among the replies from our ministers abroad 
was one from Mr. Schroeder, then charge d’affaires at 
Stockholm, who said : 

“ In the late examinations ordered by the British House of 
Commons concerning diplomatic salaries, it was stoutly, al¬ 
though somewhat ludicrously, urged by several of the witnesses 
who had served as ministers on the continent of Europe, that 
the giving of dinners was really an important branch of their 
duties. The diplomatic corps at this place would certainly 
have given similar testimony ; and viewing the matter seriously, 

■t James Monroe to William Lowndes, Chairman of Committee of 
Ways and Means, April 5, 1816, Annals of Congress, 14th Congress, 1st 

Session, p. 1735 - 


152 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y 


my own observation and experience are, that no address or 
management could perhaps so readily obtain information, pro¬ 
cure a rare copy of statistical record, or perhaps achieve other 
and more diplomatic ends, as that part of the diplomatic duty 
to the importance of which the English witnesses testified. 
Consideration and a certain kind of influence are measured by 
appearances ; and although, generally speaking, it is a sort of 
importance little desirable for an American, a certain degree 
of it must in this manner be purchased, in order to have occa¬ 
sional access to what in many cases may be indispensable—the 
ear of the king. In corroboration of this I take the liberty to 
say that I believe a conversation which I had an opportunity to 
hold with his Majesty upon the subject of Swedish taxes and 
American commerce, has had, and will have, more effect in the 
amelioration of the Swedish tariff than all the arguments which 
I had employed during the preceding six months at the Foreign 
Office, and with other members of the government and of the 
diet.”* 

Of course there are ways and ways of entertaining, 
and one minister of social experience and tact can ac¬ 
complish far more by a small expenditure than an¬ 
other could obtain by lavishness. Balls and recep¬ 
tions are useful, because they ingratiate the minister 
with the local society ; and they are as much expected 
from a foreign minister in Washington as from a for¬ 
eign minister abroad. Large formal dinners are some¬ 
times a necessity ; but at a dinner of this kind, where 
every one’s place is marked out for him by etiquette 
and official rank, little can be accomplished. Such 

* Senate Ex. Doc., No. 93, 33d Congress, 1st Session, pp. 

25, 26. 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


153 


dinners only lead to intimacy. But when a minister 
has arrived at the point where he can invite the Prime 
Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a small 
dinner of six or eight persons, where conversation is 
free and unreserved, he may then feel that he is on 
a footing which will enable him easily to accomplish 
his diplomatic business. 

We may see, therefore, that if for any reason, 
though it may be from an absurd prejudice, a minister 
is socially unpleasant to the government or to the so¬ 
ciety of the place, he is unfit to be a minister in that 
particular capital. It is partly for that reason that all 
governments have maintained their right to refuse to 
receive a particular person as minister, without giving 
any reasons; for these reasons may be as often on ac¬ 
count of his lack of social qualification as on account of 
any political grievance against him. When a minister 
is for any reason disagreeable, while he may be received 
with all the formal politeness due to him whenever he 
appears in an official capacity; while he maybe invited 
to court when the invitation could not be omitted with¬ 
out offence to the country which he represents, he may 
be entirely ignored in every other way; and in this state 
of social isolation he is certainly incapable either of 
properly representing his country or of giving proper 
protection to its interests. Take a recent case, which 
has excited some comment. A gentleman was ap¬ 
pointed minister to Austria. The hints first given by 


154 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


the Austrian government were not regarded, and his ac¬ 
ceptance was urged ; so that the Austrian government 
was finally obliged to decline peremptorily to receive 
him. One objection to him was asocial one—that his 
wife was by birth a Jewess. However absurd such a 
race prejudice may seem, it is found that any attempt 
to go counter to it would result in the social isolation 
of the minister ; and we might as well have no minister 
at all as a minister so placed. The court of Vienna is 
bound by very strict rules of etiquette, which not even 
the Emperor feels at liberty to overstep. And the 
society of Vienna has adopted still stricter ones. Al¬ 
though Hebrews have been received at the Austrian 
court, they have been received only officially , for 
there are now many persons of Hebrew race in the 
Austrian service, and their wives have not come 
within the official category. In order for an Austrian 
lady to be able to appear at court, she must show at 
least four generations of nobility. It is said that some 
years ago, when the first bourgeois ministers were ap¬ 
pointed in Austria, while they were officially invited 
to a court ball their wives were omitted. The ladies 
were indignant, and brought a sufficient pressure to 
bear upon their husbands to induce them to resign 
their offices if their wives were not invited to the ball. 
The Emperor was in a dilemma, for he could not dis¬ 
pense with such useful ministers, neither could he 
override the rules of court etiquette. He adopted, 


DIPL OMA TIC OPTIC/A IS. 


155 


however, a very simple expedient—he ennobled the 
long-deceased great-grandfathers of the ladies in ques¬ 
tion, which thus gave them the personal right to ap¬ 
pear. Such things have been done before; for Lord 
Malmesbury in his “ Correspondence ” mentions the 
fact that Potemkin, the favorite of the Empress 
Catharine II., was made a Prince of the Holy Roman 
Empire for three generations back.* 

It is not only at Vienna that a similar spirit is 
shown. One of the present rules of the English court is 
that ladies who have been divorced, no matter whether 
innocent or guilty, cannot appear there. And for this 
reason the ambassador of a great power, still in service 
in another country, was rejected not long ago by the 
Queen, because he had married a lady divorced from 
a former husband. On account of the social complica¬ 
tions often caused by imprudent marriages, it is a rule 
with some governments that no diplomatic official can 
marry, without the preliminary consent of his superi¬ 
ors ; and it is known that Prince Bismarck strongly 
objects to German diplomatists marrying foreigners. 

Ceremonial and social duties take up a large part of 
a minister’s time; but those who have been noted as 
our best and ablest representatives have always been 
most punctilious in their performance. No one has 
ever served us better than Mr. John Quincy Adams ; 

* Lord Malmesbury’s Diaries and Correspondence, i., p. 527. 
Senate Ex. Doc., No. 4, 49th Congress, 1st Session. 


156 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 

and yet we may see from his “ Diary ” that night after 
night he went into society, danced, played cards, 
talked, and ingratiated himself with the people about 
him. In spite of certain peculiarities derived from 
his Puritan ancestry, peculiarities which were some¬ 
times disagreeable when they showed themselves, Mr. 
Adams was a man not only fond of society, but very 
popular in society; and, in a word, combined the most 
useful external diplomatic qualities with those of in¬ 
tellect, study, and experience. 

It might be asked, then, what time has a minister 
left to attend to his particular diplomatic duties; and 
what duties in general does he have to perform ? It 
is not everywhere and on all occasions that great 
diplomatic questions arise which require study or rea¬ 
soning. In fact we might almost say that ministers 
are sent abroad in order to do nothing; i.e., that by 
perceiving the drift of little things, watching for any 
slight event which may grow into a huge difficulty if 
uncared for, he may prevent great questions from aris¬ 
ing. Ministers are, as it were, sentinels or outposts to 
prevent difficulties between nations. Naturally dif¬ 
ficulties may arise which by no possibility could be 
prevented by a minister; and he is then called upon 
to do his best to settle them. We may have peaceful 
and tranquil relations with a country for thirty or 
even fifty years, with slight expectations of these rela¬ 
tions being in any way disturbed, when suddenly, 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


157 


owing to the fault or misunderstanding of a subordi¬ 
nate official, some question may arise which, in a cer¬ 
tain state of public opinion, may almost bring about a 
war. Who, for instance, could have expected the out¬ 
burst of popular feeling which nearly produced a war 
between Spain and Germany on account of the occu¬ 
pation of the Caroline Islands ? Who can tell whether 
the sudden death of the King of Spain may not ulti¬ 
mately produce complications in that country which 
may extend to Cuba and cause us serious embarrass¬ 
ment, and new difficulties, hard to be solved without 
great tact and discretion on the part of our representa¬ 
tives ? The suddenness with which an incident may 
arise is one reason why it is far better to have a repre¬ 
sentative on the spot than to trust to sending a special 
commissioner after the difficulty has arisen. A little 
tact may put to rest wounded feeling, and soothe na¬ 
tional honor at the very beginning; while, if free play 
were left to party newspapers and home politicians in 
both countries, the quarrel might be so augmented 
that even a special commissioner would be unable to 
settle it. 

But in the absence of great questions there are 
routine duties at most legations sufficient to occupy a 
good portion of a minister’s time, if he understands 
his business. Naturally, where the minister, as too 
frequently happens, goes abroad with no knowledge 
of history, of foreign politics, or of languages, he is 


i 5 8 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


unable to see a hundred little ways in which he may 
be of use to the United States, either by giving in¬ 
formation or noting down precedents. There is a 
certain amount of daily work always to be done, 
either by the secretary of the legation, or by the 
minister, if there be no secretary. Despatches have to 
be written in certain specified forms ; these despatches 
have to be copied regularly into books, and must be, 
in addition, registered. The despatches and letters 
received at the legation must also be registered, care¬ 
fully filed, bound, and indexed, and a daily journal 
kept of business of any kind which maybe transacted ; 
memoranda must be written out and filed of conver¬ 
sations on public business with the Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, or with other persons. 

As to despatches, a minister should write neither 
too much nor too little. If his pen be too facile, if 
he allow himself to comment too much on general 
politics, whether of Europe or of America, if his de¬ 
spatches be too long, they are apt to be left unread in 
the files of the Department, and the valuable infor¬ 
mation which he may send, being lost in a heap of 
rubbish, is unnoticed. At the same time he should 
not in general communicate to his government long 
accounts of unimportant events that may as well be 
learned from the newspapers. He should endeavor 
to fill his despatches only with what ca wnot be learned 
from the newspapers as to the intentions, feelings, 


DIPL OMA TIC OF FI CIA IS. 


159 


and wishes of the government to which he is accred¬ 
ited, the springs of their action, and accounts of ne¬ 
gotiations in which they are engaged, especially if in 
any manner they may concern his own country. 

He should neglect nothing, however seemingly 
trifling at the moment, which may in any possible 
way affect the interests of his own country, whether 
in its policy or its commerce. There is no need to 
describe at length the opening of the legislative cham¬ 
ber, and certainly not court balls and other ceremonies, 
unless from some incident they derive unusual impor¬ 
tance ; but as it is always convenient for the State 
Department that the series of despatches from each 
capital should show in some way the political history 
of the country, it is of benefit to send printed copies 
of the royal speeches at the opening of Parliament, 
and notices of any change of ministry or of high offi¬ 
cials, with accounts of the new persons coming into 
power. 

Complaints of all kinds will continually be brought 
to a legation of acts of injustice toward American 
citizens, and the settlement of these is one of the 
minister’s most important duties. Such complaints 
are naturally most frequent in countries which have 
not reached the highest stage of civilization, or where 
the laws are not regularly and impartially adminis¬ 
tered. A minister will generally try to arrange such 
little difficulties by personal conversation and appli- 


i6o 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


cation to the proper officials, without making a written 
complaint to the Foreign Office, and thus making a 
formal business of them, except where they are very 
grave violations of our rights, and where a principle 
is involved that a minister himself is unable to settle 
unofficially. In such minor cases he would generally 
do well not to report his action to the Secretary of 
State until his unofficial applications have been acted 

upon; for when such a case is reported home, the 

♦ 

State Department is naturally very cautious, and 
desires a thorough investigation of the matter before 
taking steps which might bind the Government, and 
the minister does not then feel authorized to act un¬ 
less specially instructed from home. A man may 
suffer great injustice for a long time in a very simple 
matter, which might have been remedied at once 
while the minister was waiting for instructions. This 
is pure red tape, and giving too much importance to 
minor things. 

The greater part of the complaints presented to our 
legations come from naturalized citizens, on account 
of supposed interferences with their rights. Certainly 
a naturalized citizen should be protected in the same 
manner as one of native birth; but unfortunately 
most of these complaints arise from the naturalized 
citizen having returned to the place of his birth, hav- 
ing got into difficulties with the government to which 
he formerly owed allegiance, and using his certificate 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIA LS. 16 [ 

of naturalization simply as a means of evading* his ob¬ 
ligations to both governments. In Germany, for in¬ 
stance, this is very frequently the case. Young Ger¬ 
mans are continually coming to the United States, 
getting naturalized, and then returning to Germany 
to pass the rest of their lives, having by this process 
escaped the obligations of military service. We have 
a treaty with Germany on the subject of naturaliza¬ 
tion, and our experience has been that the German 
government has always been ready to satisfy the re¬ 
quest of the legation as a matter of courtesy, even 
when the equity of the complaint might be disputed. 
In fact, I think any one of our recent ministers to 
Germany would admit—when speaking privately— 
that nine-tenths of the complaints brought before 
them are on their face without equity and justice, 
though coming under the letter of the treaty, and 
should not really be attended to. Unfortunately our 
legal authorities maintain that a certificate of natural¬ 
ization is in the nature of a judgment pronounced by 
a court; and that therefore it cannot be set aside ex¬ 
cept by the court itself, no matter how evident may 
be the fraud by which, or the fraudulent purpose for 
which, it was obtained. 

Commercial difficulties are now those which are 
most frequent, and which give most work to our lega¬ 
tions. In the year 1883 the United States exported 
to foreign countries six hundred and twenty-nine and 


162 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


a quarter million dollars’ worth of raw material, and 
one hundred and seventy-five million dollars’ worth 
of manufactured goods. This is an amount sufficient 
to make a disturbance in the markets of the world ; 
and with the protectionist policy which is growing in 
nearly all countries that are endeavoring to develop 
their manufactures, efforts of various kinds are being 
made by foreign governments to hinder this too great 
commercial rivalry of the United States. These 
efforts take different forms; sometimes by increase of 
the tariff; sometimes in more insidious ways by rais¬ 
ing the freight tariff on railways for foreign goods, or 
by excluding certain articles on account of their being 
injurious to health. A minister should keep a watch¬ 
ful eye on all measures relating to commerce which 
may in any way affect our interests. He should not 
confine himself solely to dealings with the Foreign 
Office. That is his official mode of communication. 
But he should use the social position which he has 
been able to acquire for impressing upon deputies, 
statesmen, and even members of mercantile bodies, 
the dangers of such a course and the difficulties which 
might arise with his Government. In other words, 
he should endeavor to stifle these difficulties at the 
outset. 

Perhaps the greatest annoyances which American 
ministers abroad have to endure are those caused by 
their travelling countrymen, who desire social assist- 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIA L S. 


163 


ance and information. Many Americans suppose the 
legation and consulate to be offices of information for 
their own special benefit, to receive their letters and 
parcels, obtain tickets for them to galleries and mu¬ 
seums, to act both as guide-book and courier, and ask 
and obtain invitations for them into general society 
and presentations at court. Many things are asked 
which could be obtained with perfect ease elsewhere; 
and it will depend on the tact and good-nature of the 
official himself as to how far he will allow such re¬ 
quests to annoy him. By compliance as far as possi¬ 
ble with requests that are reasonable, by receiving let¬ 
ters, and having on hand a store of tickets, he will 
probably get through more easily than if he stood on 
his dignity and sent the applicants away disappointed 
and snubbed. As to introductions into society, the 
minister certainly should not be called to do any¬ 
thing of this kind. The only way in which he could 
reasonably present a travelling American to the social 
world in which he moved would be at his own 
house; and he should be allowed to choose the per¬ 
sons to whom he extends his hospitality. As to pres¬ 
entations at court, there is even still more difficulty. 
In some countries, where there are large numbers of 
persons to be invited to state balls and concerts, a 
minister is soon given to understand that it is pre¬ 
ferred that he should not make requests for presenta¬ 
tions. Other courts, where the society is more re- 


A MERIC AN DIPL OMA C Y. 


164 

stricted, are often very glad to receive foreigners ; and 
there it is comparatively easy to obtain the presenta¬ 
tion of a reputable and agreeable person. So great, 
however, has sometimes been the demand for presen¬ 
tations, that at some courts restrictive rules have been 
made in consequence. 

It has been frequently maintained that the rapidity 
of communications and the general dissemination of 
news render the system of resident diplomatic agents 
useless ; and it has been suggested that a secretary or 
a consul would be able to perform all the necessary 
work, unless some important question arose, when 
some one could be sent on a special mission to ar¬ 
range the matter ; or that the respective Ministers of 
Foreign Affairs could communicate directly with each 
other by telegraph, without the intervention of a 
third person. Even if this were the case, it would be 
impossible for us to inaugurate such a system with¬ 
out the consent of all the world. 

“ There is (as Wheaton says) no legal obligation to receive 
or send public ministers; but international assent to the system 
for a long period of time has given to the custom the force of 
an obligation upon all civilized powers, and it cannot be aban¬ 
doned without the assent of nations. Diplomatic representa¬ 
tion is a definite factor in the political economy of the world ; 
and no better scheme has yet been devised for the despatch 
of international affairs, or for the preservation of friendly rela¬ 
tions between governments.*” 

* Report of Mr. Frelinghuysen, April 26, 188.4 • H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 
146, 48th Congress, 1st Session. 


DIPL OMA 7'IC OFFICIALS. 


165 


Lord Palmerston expresses the present importance 
of diplomacy very well in the examination which has 
been before referred to. He was asked : 

“ Is not the necessity for a man of great talent and experi¬ 
ence residing at a place to act for the government at home, 
much diminished since you have been enabled to communicate 
in the course of a day, and especially with the prospect of hav- 
ing by the end of this year the electric telegraph, by which you 
will be enabled to communicate with Paris in a quarter of an 
hour ? ” 

Lord Palmerston replied : 

“No, I do not think it is. I think it is equally important to 
have an able agent to represent you, whether he is one day 
or four or more days off; perhaps it is less at a great distance ; 
events may occur which may, beyond doubt, either compel 
him to take great responsibility, or may subject him to delay 
in acting, unless he can get instructions. There is great ad¬ 
vantage in having rapid communication. I apprehend that 
there is a very important difference between communications 
carried on by writing and communications carried on by per¬ 
sonal intercourse. I should fear that communications carried 
on by writing would be more likely to end ill than communi¬ 
cations carried on by personal intercourse. I should be very 
sorry to have to rely upon the accounts of 1 our own corre¬ 
spondent.’ The news of public events that have happened, 
no doubt comes as quickly by newspaper accounts as by offi¬ 
cial despatches ; and it is for this obvious reason, that the 
newspapers find it for their interest to make very expensive 
arrangements for obtaining the earliest information of public 
events that occur. But the despatch of your minister or am¬ 
bassador is not so much to tell you what has happened, as to 
inform you of the disposition and intentions of the government 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


166 

with which he is in relation. That information you cannot 
receive from the correspondents in the newspapers.” 

Mr. Bright asked 

“ Whether it would not be practicable to transact the ordinary 
business by means of written communications between the two 
Foreign Offices, and when anything arose requiring particular 
attention to have a special mission of some member of the 
cabinet for the purpose of arranging whatever might be re¬ 
quired to be arranged.” 

Said Lord Palmerston : 

(< I do not think it would : there are daily and weekly mat¬ 
ters that require personal communication. Everybody must 
know the extreme difference there is between personal com¬ 
munication between men who are in the habit of intercourse, 
and the exchange of letters written by men who, perhaps, 
never saw each other. The practice at present existing in 
diplomacy combines the two, because it frequently happens 
that a despatch is written by a government to its diplomatic 
agent at a foreign court, which despatch he is to communicate 
to the court just as it is written, accompanying it with such 
verbal explanations as he may be instructed also to give.” 

Subsequently Mr. Cobden said : 

“ If you go back two or three hundred years ago, when 
there were no newspapers ; when there was scarcely such a 
thing as international postal communication, when affairs of 
State turned upon a court intrigue, or the caprice of a mis¬ 
tress, or a Pope’s bull, or a marriage, was it not of a great 
deal more consequence at that time to have ministers at for¬ 
eign courts, who, in the first place could furnish you with all 
necessary information of what was going on, and who could, 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


167 


in the next place, influence those individuals upon whose will 
the destinies of Europe so greatly depended ? Was it not of 
much more importance to have highly paid ministers of Eng¬ 
land at foreign courts than it is in these constitutional times, 
when all affairs of state are discussed in the public newspapers 
and in the legislative assemblies, and when every incident that 
occurs is reported in The Ti?nes newspaper sooner even than 
you can have it in the Foreign Office by your ambassadors or 
couriers ? Under these circumstances are not the functions of 
an ambassador less important now than they were two or three 
hundred years ago ? ” 

Lord Palmerston replied : 

“ I should humbly conceive that they are more important on 
account of the very circumstances which have just been stated ; 
because when the affairs of a country were decided by the ca¬ 
price of a mistress, by a back-stairs intrigue, or by a Pope’s 
bull, it is obvious that your ambassador could have very little 
influence in directing any of these operating causes ; and there¬ 
fore all he could do would be to let you know, if he could find 
it out, how those secret causes were acting. But in proportion as 
those causes were secret, it was more difficult for him to arrive 
at a knowledge of these. In these days, as is well stated in the 
question, the conduct of governments is influenced by public 
opinion, by what passes in deliberative assemblies, and by in¬ 
ternational considerations, rather than by personal caprices and 
passions ; and it is precisely that kind of consideration which 
an ambassador can bring under the notice and press upon the 
attention of another government. Your ambassador can tell 
the minister of a foreign country that your interests are so and 
so ; that the public opinion of your country runs in a certain 
direction, and has obtained a certain height; that there are 
certain things that your government can do, and certain things 
that it can not do ; and by making the minister of that country 


A MERIC A N DIRE OMA C ) \ 


168 

aware of what are considered the interests of England, and what 
is the prevalent public opinion of England, and what are the in¬ 
fluences which control, direct, or interfere with the English 
government, he places under the consideration of the govern¬ 
ment to which he is accredited matters which may greatly in¬ 
fluence the conduct of that government with regard to things 
which may involve questions of peace and war ; which, at all 
events, may involve questions deeply affecting the commercial 
interests of the country, and therefore, I should think that the 
change which has taken place with regard to the transaction 
of public affairs in Europe tends to make diplomatic agents of 
more importance rather than of less importance.”* 

Among the various efforts to reduce the expendi¬ 
ture of our foreign service, and, as some have thought, 
to increase its efficiency, it has been proposed that we 
might have two or three great missions on each conti¬ 
nent, the chiefs of which could go from one country 
to another as special business arose. This proposal is 
not impossible to carry into effect, in spite of long dis¬ 
tances. In Europe, for instance, the countries might 
be grouped together in such a way that four or five 
ministers could do the whole of the work. But here 
a difficulty would arise which would destroy the ex¬ 
pected advantage. These ministers would necessarily 
have to travel from one country to another, residing 
for a few months in each country to which they are 
accredited, in order to become acquainted with the 
leading men and the run of public affairs. For that 

* Senate Ex. Doc., No 93, 33d Congress, 1st Session. 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


169 


purpose they should be paid large salaries. It would 
also be necessary to have on the spot in each capital 
a secretary of legation, who could act as charge d’af¬ 
faires and inform the minister when it was necessary 
to have his personal presence. The resultant of all 
these expenditures could not be less than the amount 
now spent ; although it would enable us to pay our 
ministers much better than they are now paid. There 
would perhaps be the disadvantage that none of the 
countries to which our minister was accredited would 
feel quite as well disposed to the United States as if a 
special minister were kept at each capital. They 
would reason, perhaps rather loosely, but with a show 
of argument on their side: “ The United States is a 
very great and a very rich country. What difference 
does a few thousand dollars more or less make to you ? 
You waste far more than that sum on public buildings 
and river and harbor bills. If you show politeness to 
us at all—and you seem to put it in that way rather 
than from any advantage it is to yourselves—it would 
be better to show politeness in the way that we appre¬ 
ciate, and not with a niggard hand.” 

After all, it is for each country to choose the way 
in which it shall be served; and if, for the purposes of 
efficiency, for reducing the number of officials, for 
increasing salaries, or for economy, or even for mak¬ 
ing a concession to a strong—though I maintain 
wrong and uninformed—public opinion as to the use 


170 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 

and necessity of a diplomatic service, it is a question 
simply of policy and expediency. But there are 
many examples of such combinations. We now com¬ 
bine the missions to Greece, Roumania, and Serbia. 
We have one envoy accredited to the five republics of 
Central America; so do Germany, Great Britain, 
France, and Spain. We have a charge d’affaires to 
Uruguay and Paraguay, though those two countries 
are many hundred miles apart. Other countries do 
the same thing, Great Britain and France accrediting 
each an envoy to the Argentine Republic and Para¬ 
guay—a more natural combination; Chili to Uruguay 
and the Argentine; and Austria, Germany, Peru, 
Portugal, and Sweden having each one representative 
accredited to the three countries, the Argentine Re¬ 
public, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The English minister 
and the Italian charge d’affaires to Peru are accred¬ 
ited also to Bolivia. Italy combines China and 
Japan; Austria and Portugal combine China, Japan, 
and Siam; Great Britain combines China and Corea. 
Even in Europe this practice is not unknown. Bel¬ 
gium, Holland, Spain, and Portugal each combine 
Sweden and Denmark into one mission ; Roumania 
and Sweden have each one minister accredited to Bel¬ 
gium and Holland ; Turkey accredits the same min¬ 
ister to Sweden and Holland ; Greece to England 
and Holland; Serbia to France and Belgium ; Mex¬ 
ico to Spain and Portugal; and Great Britain has 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 


171 


accredited the consul-general at Scutari in Albania as 
minister to Montenegro.* 

It has been also suggested that we entirely dis¬ 
pense with the diplomatic service, and confide diplo¬ 
matic functions to the consular officers at the various 
capitals. Now this proposition has an appearance of 
reason. In many cities there is not so much business, 
consular and diplomatic together, that it could not be 
done by the same person, or at least by the same of¬ 
fice. There can be no reason why in most of the 
capitals of the world the minister could not be charged 
with consular duties, or at least one of the secretaries. 
Those duties are generally distinct from diplomatic 
ones but they might easily be combined in one person. 
But between charging a minister with consular duties 
and a consul with diplomatic duties, there is a great 
difference. A minister would have only so much 
added to his daily work; a consul would, as may be 
seen from what has already been said, be placed in a 
very different situation from that of an ordinary con¬ 
sul. According to rules now recognized by all the 
world, including the United States, a consul thus 
charged with diplomatic duties would be recognized 
as a charge d’affaires, and would be subject to all 
the official and social burdens of diplomatic life, with¬ 
out receiving proper compensation, and possibly with- 

* These examples are all taken from the last edition of the 
official Almanack de Gotha. 


172 


A MERIC A M DIPL OMA C Y. 


out proper preparation. We would expect our diplo¬ 
matic representatives always to be in subordinate 
position, and inmost countries a consul-general charge 
d’affaires ranks below charges d’affaires proper; and 
yet demand from them results which can be achieved 
only by men who stand in the highest positions. They 
would neither have power nor dignity, but would be 
saddled with all the duties of ministers, with, of course, 
less pay. 

In deference to this feeling of simplifying our rep¬ 
resentation abroad, there have been various cases 
where consular and diplomatic powers have been 
united in the same person. Our ministers to several 
countries—Switzerland, Portugal, Denmark, Greece, 
Roumania, and Serbia, and some of the South Amer¬ 
ican countries—are consuls-general as well; and this 
has not been found to work badly.* Their consular 
duties have not hindered their diplomatic work, nor 
injured their social position. Their diplomatic posi¬ 
tion, in small capitals, by no means prevents their 
knowing the heads of the mercantile world ; on the 
contrary, it assists in it, and they have every oppor¬ 
tunity to understand our commercial needs in those 
countries, and the peculiar conditions under which our 

*They have, indeed, one natural advantage over those who 
are exclusively ministers. They receive their allowances for 
office-rent and contingent expenses according to consular and 
not according to diplomatic rules. 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIA L S. 


J 73 


trade is carried on. In the same- way, in some other 
cities, such as Madrid, Rome, Vienna, Constantinople, 
the office of consul-general has been at times united 
with that of secretary of legation. In Constantinople, 
and this I may say from personal experience, there was 
a decided gain to our service from the union of the 
two offices, making one head instead of two. In Mad¬ 
rid, where the consular business is small, this was 
equally the case. It would have been true also in all 
of the small capitals of Europe, and even in St. Peters¬ 
burg and Rome. In Vienna the consul-general had 
too much business to allow him to perform the duties 
of secretary of legation also, and neither here nor in 
capitals like Paris, London, or Berlin, could this union 
have been effected unless there were one or two other 
secretaries of legation to perform the necessary work. 
The diplomatic title would in that case be given to the 
consul-general simply for social reasons, as it would 
obtain for him a higher standing in the society of the 
place. At Rome alone, of all places where this union 
was tried, were there objections from the government 
of the country: the Italian government refused to ac¬ 
cept the consul-general as secretary of legation. It 
is impossible to judge of the action of the Italian gov¬ 
ernment in this case without knowing exactly in what 
manner the proposition was put to them. If, when it 
was proposed, it was hinted in any way that such a 
union would be disagreeable to the legation, the Ital- 


174 


A MERICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


ian government, out of regard to the legation, might 
have refused. It certainly could not have done so on 
principle ; for in several of the states of South America 
the Italian government unites its chief diplomatic and 
consular functions in the same person ; and it could 
hardly have maintained that what was good for Amer¬ 
ica was not good also for Rome." Perhaps it might 
have been different if the case had been reversed, and 
the secretary named consul-general. 

Such unions, are however, no novelty; for while in 
most countries the consular and diplomatic services 
are kept in a measure distinct, in all countries persons 
not unfrequently pass from one to the other. Some 
of the most distinguished men in the diplomatic ser¬ 
vice of all countries have been originally subordinates 
in the consular service. There was a time in St. Peters¬ 
burg when both the English and the German consuls 
were secretaries of legation. Even now the Austrian 
consuls-general at London and Paris have the rank of 
minister resident, and are directors of the Commercial 
Chancery of the embassy. In Paris the English con¬ 
sul is a member of the embassy. In Morocco, Persia, 
China, and Japan the English envoy extraordinary and 
minister plenipotentiary is at the same time consul- 

* Italy maintains in Morocco a minister resident, who is also 
consul-general ; in Chili, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Uru¬ 
guay consuls-general, who are also charge d’affaires, and in 
Paraguay a consul and charge d’affaires. 


DIPL OMA TIC OPTICIA LS. 


175 


general. In Peru, New Grenada, Ecuador, Chili, 
Hayti, Central America, and Uruguay, the English 
ministers resident are also consuls-general, and the 
commissioner to the Sandwich Islands also performs 
consular duties. In Washington, the Danish and Swe¬ 
dish ministers are also consuls-general; in Central 
America, Ecuador, Siam and Uruguay, the French 
charge d’affaires is consul-general; in the Argentine 
Republic, the Austrian minister and the Belgian 
charge d’affaires, are consuls-general; in Bolivia and 
Uruguay, the Spanish charge d’affaires is consul-gen¬ 
eral ; in Brazil, the Venezuelan charge d’affaires is 
consul-general, though Venezuela has refused to ac¬ 
cept the minister of the United States in a dual 
capacity; in China, the Dutch minister is consul-gen¬ 
eral ; in Corea, the Russian minister is consul-general; 
in Hawaii, the French and Portuguese commission¬ 
ers are consuls-general; in Japan the Portuguese 
charge d’affaires is consul-general; and in Portugal, 
the Swedish minister is also consul-general. In sev¬ 
eral other countries, ministers or some members of the 
legation perform the duties of consuls-general without 
bearing the title. 

Owing to the habit of considering our missions 
abroad simply as convenient places to dispose of po¬ 
litical partisans who are desirous of obtaining a good 
sinecure, or who have failed of re-election by their 
constituents, our legations have generally been classi- 


176 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


fied according to the amount of salary paid to them, 
although this should be considered simply as an 
equivalent for the various expenses necessary in dif¬ 
ferent places. I should be disposed to arrange our 
missions abroad very differently, according to their 
relative importance. In the first place naturally 
comes England, not only because England is the 
country nearest allied to us by blood and by commer¬ 
cial interests, but because along our whole northern 
frontier extends an English possession, and English 
colonies surround us on every side. We have com¬ 
mercial difficulties, difficulties with fisheries, difficul¬ 
ties with Indians on the frontier, and difficulties with 
our own citizens of Irish birth who naturally sympa¬ 
thize with their native country. Next to this, for a 
similar reason, should come Spain, on account of the 
Spanish colonies of Cuba and Porto Rico lying near 
us, of the commercial restrictions which we are under 
with those colonies, and of the danger of annexation 
which every disturbance there brings nearer us. 
After this come Mexico, the countries of Central and 
South America, where we wish to preserve a political 
as well as a commercial predominance, and to prevent 
enterprises of European powers ; the Hawaiian Isl¬ 
ands, which we are bound to regard always as an out¬ 
lying part of America; Eastern Asia, China, Japan, 
and Siam, where we have large commercial interests 
capable of being greatly increased. After these only 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 


177 


should come Germany, the first of all European 
states not mentioned, on account of the number of 
Germans naturalized or domiciled in this country, 
the great commerce, and the difficulties arising from 
both. After Germany are France, the rest of Euro¬ 
pean countries, Africa, and Persia. 

There are at present in the diplomatic service of 
the United States fifteen envoys extraordinary and 
ministers plenipotentiary, sixteen ministers resident, 
twelve of whom are also consuls-general, one charge 
d’affaires (to Paraguay and Uruguay), and one diplo¬ 
matic agent and consul-general (to Egypt). We have 
representatives in every independent and semi-inde¬ 
pendent country of Europe, except Montenegro and 
Bulgaria; in every country of South America, except 
Ecuador; and in all those parts of Asia and Africa 
with which we have any relations. Why Ecuador 
should be omitted is very hard to say. We have re¬ 
cently had a difficulty with that country, which was 
aggravated by the lack of a diplomatic representative 
on our side, for Ecuador maintains one here. We 
finally settled the dispute by a display of naval force, 
and thus set a very bad precedent for other countries 
to follow in dealing with the American republics. In 
Bulgaria the presence of a consular officer possessing 
diplomatic powers, i.e., a diplomatic agent and con¬ 
sul-general (the form usual in semi-independent coun¬ 
tries), is necessary for the interests of our commerce 
12 


178 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


and for the protection of Americans and their prop¬ 
erty ; for there are more Americans established in 
Bulgaria than in Roumania and Serbia combined. 
Now that Montenegro has a port on the Adriatic, 
the minister to Greece could also be accredited to 
that country, without adding greatly to his duties. 

The total cost of our diplomatic service during the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, was $410,246.66. 
The sum of $3,834 was taken in for passport fees. 
The cost of the British diplomatic service for the 
fiscal year ending March 31, 1884, was $1,205,654. 
The following comparative table will show the rank 
and salaries of the chief diplomatic officers of the 
United States, Great Britain, and France. 

These salaries do not, however, represent entirely 
the differences, for while the allowances to our min¬ 
isters for office-rent and for the contingent expenses 
are very small, those in the English and French ser¬ 
vices are very liberal. Their ministers either have an 
allowance large enough to enable them to hire a com¬ 
fortable and convenient house (not office), or have 
the use of a house belonging to the government. In 
Constantinople, for example, the English government 
owns two large houses, almost palaces, one in town 
and one in the country on the Bosphorus. So also 
do France, Germany, Russia, and Italy. Nearly every 
other government but our own has at least one. So 
in many capitals of Europe; and in the extreme East 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIA LS. 


179 


Great Britain.... 

France . 

Germany. 

Russia. 

Austria-Hungary 

Italy. 

Spain. 

T urkey. 

Belgium. 

Netherlands. 

Sweden. 

Denmark. 

Portugal. 

Switzerland. 

Greece. 

Roumania. 

Serbia . 

Bulgaria. 

Hayti. 

San Domingo ... 

Mexico. 

Central America. 

Colombia. 

Venezuela.. 

Brazil. 

Uruguay.. 

Paraguay . 

Argentine. 

Chili. 

Peru. 

Bolivia. 

Ecuador. 

The United States 

Sandwich Islands . 

Japan . .. . . 

China. 

Corea. 

Siam. 

Persia. 

Liberia. 

Morocco. 

Egypt. 

Congo. 



United States. 

England. 

F ranee. 


e. 

$17,50° 



a. $40, OOO 


e. 

17,500 

a. 

$50,000 



e. 

i 7 > 5 °° 

a. 

35,000 

a. 28,000 


e. 

17. 5 °° 

a. 

39 ,oco 

a. 50,000 


e. 

12,000 

a. 

40,000 

a. 34,000 


e. 

12,000 

a. 

35,ooo 

a. 22,000 


e. 

12,000 

e. 

30,000 

a. 24,000 


e. 

10,000 

a. 

40,000 

a. 26,000 


m. 

7.500 

e. 

17,400 

e. 12,000 


m. 

7 . 5 oo 

e. 

18,000 

e. 12,000 


m. 

7 . 5 oo 

e. 

15,000 

e. 10,000 


m. c. 

5,000 

e. 

15,000 

e. 10,000 


m. c. 

5,000 

e. 

20,000 

e. 12,000 


111. c. 

5.000 

e. 

6,250 

a. 12,000 


) 


e. 

17,500 

e. 12,000 


>- m. c. 6,500 

e. 

10,000 

e. 10,000 


) 


m. 

6,000 

e. 7,000 




ag.c. 

6,000 

ag. c. 6,000 


j- 111. 

C. 5,000 

m.c. 

6,000 

e. 6,000 


e. 

12,000 

e. 

15,000 

e. 16,000 


e. 

IO, OOO 

m.c. 

10,000 

ch.c. 6,000 


e. 

7.500 

m.c. 

10,000 

cli.c. 6,000 


111. c. 

7.500 

m. 

10,000 

c. 6,000 


e. 

12,000 

e. 

20,000 

e. 16,000 


1 ch. 

5.000 

m.c. 

1 

8,000 

ch. c. 6,800 

j 


) 


r e * 

15,000 

v e. 14,000 


m. c. 

7.500 

s 


f 


e. 

10,000 

m. c. 

10,000 

e. 10,000 


e. 

10,000 

m. c. 

10,000 

r. 10,000 


111. c. 

5.000 






m.c. 

7,000 

ch.c. 5,200 



e. 

'to, 000 

e. 16,000 


m. 

7.500 

com. 

c. 5,500 

com.c. 4,200 


e. 

12,000 

e.c. 

20, OOO 

e. 16,000 


e. 

12,000 

) 






r e * 

30,000 

e. 17,000 


m. c. 

5,000 

) 



m.c. 

5,000 

ag.c. 

8,000 

com.c. 5,000 


m. c. 

5,000 

e. c. 

25,000 

e. 12,000 


m c. 

C non 





c. 

2,000 

e. c. 

10,000 

e. 6,400 


ag.c. 

no r 

5,000 

ag.c. 

12,500 

ag.c. 10,000 



5 000 




Note.—I n the above table a. = ambassador ; e. = envoy extraordinary and minis¬ 
ter plenipotentiary ; in. — minister resident ; c. = consul-general; ag. = diplomatic 
agent; ch. = charge d’affaires ; com. — commissioner. The salaries are calculated, 
for convenience, at the rate of five dollars to the pound sterling, and five francs to the 
dollar. 










































































i8o 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


this practice is universal, there being no other way of 
providing for the legation. Our Government owns 
houses only in Siam and Morocco, but the need of 
them is urgent in China and Japan. Owing to the 
constant rise of property in all large cities the pur¬ 
chase of legation-houses would not be bad simply as 
an investment. English ministers also have an outfit 
in order to enable them to install themselves properly 
at their posts. This is calculated on a liberal scale, 
being, for example, .$20,000 for Paris; $12,500 for 
Vienna, Berlin, and St. Petersburg; $10,000, for China, 
Japan, and Persia, Madrid and Washington, and never 
being less than $2,000. These are the figures for the 
outfit in case of an original appointment. On pro¬ 
motion the outfits are only two-thirds of these 
amounts, and only one-half on a mere transfer. 

In the early part of our Revolution the salary of a 
minister plenipotentiary was ,£2,500, equal to $11,100, 
besides which he sometimes had an allowance for 
house-rent. This was reduced on account of the em¬ 
barrassed state of our finances, and subsequently the 
salary of a full minister was generally $9,000 ; that of 
a minister resident or charge d’affaires was $4,500. 
Each was allowed one-half of a year’s salary as outfit 
on going to his post, and one-quarter of a year’s salary 
as return allowance on coming home. Although 
these were necessary and very proper allowances, they 
were productive of abuses, owing to the want of a 


DIPLOMA TIC OFFICIALS. 181 

fixed tenure of office. It was possible for an admin¬ 
istration to reward a partisan by appointing him to 
a foreign mission, and by recalling him, or allowing 
him to resign after a year’s nominal service, or even 
less, during which he was often absent from his post, 
or lived cheaply in a hotel or boarding-house. In 
this way, with considerable time spent in going and 
coming, by not resigning until he had reached Amer¬ 
ica, and had enjoyed his leave of absence, with his 
outfit and infit, a minister might have the salary of 
two years for what was really a pleasure trip, with 
but a few weeks spent at his post of duty. The mis¬ 
sion to St. Petersburg of John Randolph of Roanoke 
is a notorious instance of this abuse. It was custom¬ 
ary, also, to allow about a year’s salary to a minister 
sent for special reasons, as to negotiate a treaty, to a 
country to which he was not originally accredited, 
in addition to his expenses. In this way a charge 
d’affaires at Buenos Ayres,, with a salary of $4,500, re¬ 
ceived for special services in making treaties with 
Paraguay and Uruguay, the whole work of which 
was done by his colleagues or friends, the sum of $14,- 
3 ; and a minister at Constantinople, with a salary 
of $6,000, received $9,000 for a few weeks’ services in 
Greece, whither he had been sent to arrange for the 
payment of an unjust claim of a missionary who had 
acted as consul. A consul-general to Japan, in 1856, 
was allowed $10,000 for concluding a treaty with 


1 82 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


Siam. The law of 1856 abolished outfits, and in¬ 
creased the salaries of the ministers to about the point 
at which they are now fixed. In some cases, as at 
Copenhagen, Lisbon, and Berne, these salaries have 
been reduced since that time by a third. Such, how¬ 
ever, is the traditional power of an ancient abuse that 
many people still believe that a minister holds a sin¬ 
ecure, and that the position is one without responsi¬ 
bility, which is to be sought for the opportunity of 
making money, or for taking a pleasure trip at the 
expense of the Government. 

There appear to have been no appropriations for 
the salaries of secretaries of legation before the year 
1831. Up to that time each minister was supposed to 
pay his own secretary, and he therefore considered the 
copies of his despatches, as well as his instructions, to 
be his personal property, and took them away on 
leaving his post. From reports made in 1832 we 
find that there were no records in the legation at 
London prior to 1826, nor in that at Paris prior to 
1810, nor in that in St. Petersburg before 1823. * By 
the law of 1856 the salaries of secretaries of legation 
were fixed at fifteen per cent, of the salaries of the 
ministers, that is, from $1,500 to $2,625. The salaries 
of second secretaries of legation, or assistant secre- 
• taries, as they were at first called, are $2,000 each. 
Secretaries have no outfit nor allowances of any kind, 

* H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 94, 22c! Congress, 2d Session. 


DIPL OMA TIC OF FI CIA LS. 18 3 

and must pay their own travelling expenses. When 
acting as charge d’affaires ad interim , they receive an 
amount equal to one-half of the minister’s salary for 
that time, during which, however, their own pay ceases. 
In the English service the secretaries are divided into 
four classes, and receive from $725 to $5,000 yearly, 
besides an outfit varying from $725 to $2,000 to the 
two higher grades, and an allowance to secretaries 
of embassy at from $500 to $1,000 for house-rent. 
Their travelling expenses are paid on their appoint¬ 
ment, transfer, or promotion. When acting as charge 
d’affaires a secretary receives in addition from $5 to 
$30 a day, which is deducted from the salary of the 
minister. Besides this, a secretary of legation, after 
ten years’ service as such, receives an additional $1,250 
a year. Secretaries also have an additional allowance 
of $500 yearly if they have passed a satisfactory ex¬ 
amination in Public Law, and the same amount for a 
knowledge of Russian, Turkish, Persian, Japanese, or 
Chinese, when serving in the countries where any of 
those languages are used. 

One result of a regular service is that in most coun¬ 
tries diplomatic and consular functionaries who be¬ 
come incapacitated by age or illness, are entitled to 
pensions, regulated partly by the positions they have 
held and the length of time they have served. In 
the English service the age for retirement is fixed at 
seventy. In England these pensions are paid out of 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


184 

the Treasury; but in some other countries they are 
of slight cost to the government, because paid from a 
pension-fund, which is made up in great part by 
the retention of a certain percentage of the salary of 
each official. The British diplomatic pensions are of 
four classes—at $8,500, $6,500, $4,500, and $3,500 
annually ; but, as there are not very many persons 
who are on the lists, the amount now being paid for 
diplomatic pensions is only $132,250, and for con¬ 
sular pensions $145,500. 

Enough has been said to show the utter inadequacy 
of the present salaries paid in our diplomatic service ; 
but it may be interesting to quote the opinions of 
some eminent men, who lived at a time when ex¬ 
penses were less, and the purchasing power of money 
was greater, and who were all above questions of per¬ 
sonal interest. 

In a report made to President Jackson in 1833, by 
Edward Livingston, then Secretary of State, the 
whole of which is worth attentive study,* it is said : 

“ Ministers are considered as favorites, selected to enjoy 
the pleasures of foreign travel at the expense of the people ; 
their places as sinecures ; and their residence abroad as a 
continued scene of luxurious enjoyment. Their exertions, 
their embarrassments, their laborious intercourse with the 
governments to which they are sent, their anxious care to 
avoid anything that might, on the one hand, give just cause 
of offence, or to neglect or to abandon the rights of their 

* H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 94, 226 . Congress, 2d Session. 


DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 


185 


country or its citizens, on the other, are all unknown at home. 
Even the merit of their correspondence, from which, at least 
the reward of honor might be derived, is hid in the archives 
of the Department and rarely sees the light; and, except in 
the instances of a successful negotiation for claims, a minister 
returns to his country, after years of the most laborious ex¬ 
ertion of the highest talent, with an injured, if not a broken 
fortune, his countrymen ignorant of his exertions, and under¬ 
valuing them, perhaps, if known. On the whole, there is 
scarcely an office, of which the duties, properly performed, 
are more arduous, more responsible, and less fairly appre¬ 
ciated than that of minister to a country with which we have 
important commercial relations. Yet there is some reason to 
believe that appointments to them are sometimes eagerly 
sought from the same false ideas of the nature of the employ¬ 
ment. To these mistaken ideas, more or less prevalent, may 
be traced many of the evils which have operated, and still 
operate injuriously upon the interests and reputation of the 
country. 

“ At home the head of every subordinate bureau attached to 
any of the departments, has an office, and a messenger, and 
clerks, and fire and stationery, and lights, and every con¬ 
venience for carrying on the business entrusted to him. This 
is as it should be. But, to represent the dignity of the coun¬ 
try, and on a scanty salary to transact its most important con¬ 
cerns abroad, we send a man whom we provide with none of 
these necessaries for the transaction of his business ; we force 
him to do all the drudgery of the office with his own hands, 
and either to'live in some obscure place, where his countrymen 
blush to find him fixed, when, after some difficulty they have 
discovered his tavern residence ; or, at the expense of his 
own fortune, to provide what is necessary for the interest and 
dignity of the Government. The usual answer to these repre¬ 
sentations is that, notwithstanding all these inconveniences, 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


I 86 

candidates are always found eagerly seeking these appoint¬ 
ments. But it must be remarked that these candidates are of 
two kinds. First, men of wealth, who are willing to purchase 
the honor of the station at the expense of their private for¬ 
tunes. But although these are not always the fittest, in other 
respects, for the place, they are sometimes selected, and their 
appointment is popular, because there seems to be no objec¬ 
tion to a minister’s keeping up a decent appearance, provided 
he does it at his own expense. Secondly, there are others, 
who seek these appointments, because they make false calcu¬ 
lations on the consequences. They resolve to be very eco¬ 
nomical, to live within their income, and to be drawn into no 
extravagance. But, on arriving at their place of destination, 
they find that expenses which might, with prudence, have 
been avoided here, are inevitable abroad. Civilities are re¬ 
ceived which must be returned ; strangers are introduced who 
must be entertained ; their countrymen call on them, and 
must be treated hospitably. In short, they find themselves 
obliged to live as others do; or, to forego all the advantages 
which social intercourse would give them in the business of 
their mission. The consequence is, that all our ministers re¬ 
turn with impaired fortunes, however firm their resolutions 
have been to avoid unnecessary expense. It is possible there 
may be exceptions ; but they are certainly very rare. . . . 

If the mission is useful it ought to be supported at the public, 
not at private expense ; and the representatives of a great 
nation ought not to be obliged to employ, in devising parsimo¬ 
nious expedients for their support, that time and those talents 
which ought to be occupied in the service of their country.” 

In a letter to Monroe, dated at Paris, June 17, 1785, 
Thomas Jefferson says : 

“ I thank you for your attention to my outfit ; for the arti¬ 
cles of household furniture, clothes, and carriage, I have al- 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIA LS. 


I8 7 


ready paid 28,000 livres, and have still more to pay. For the 
greatest part of this I have been obliged to anticipate my 
salary ; from which, however, I shall never be able to repay 
it. I find that by a rigid economy, bordering, however, on 
meanness, I can save, perhaps 500 livres a month, at least in 
the summer. The residue goes for expenses, so much of course 
and of necessity, that I cannot avoid them, without abandoning 

■-I • t „ 

all respect for my public character. Yet I will pray you to 
touch this string, which I know to be a tender one with Con¬ 
gress, with the utmost delicacy. I had rather be ruined in my 
fortune than in their esteem. If they allow me half a year’s 
salary as an outfit, I can get through my debts in time. If 
they raise the salary to what it was, or even pay our house- 
rent and taxes, I can live with more decency.” 

Mr. John Adams wrote to Mr. Jay, in relation to 
his appointment as minister to England : 

“ There is a certain appearance in proportion to rank, which 
all the courts of Europe make a serious point of exacting from 
everybody who is presented to them. I need not say to you, 
sir, because you know it perfectly, that American ministers 
have never yet been able to make this appearance at court; 
they are now less able to do it than ever. I lament this ne¬ 
cessity of consuming the labor of my fellow-citizens upon such 
objects, as much as any man living ; but I am sure that de¬ 
basing your ministers so much below their rank will one day 
have consequences of much more importance to the husband¬ 
man, artisan, and even laborer.” 

Mr. John Quincy Adams, writing from London, in 
1815, to the Secretary of State, says: 

“ It is needless to say to you, or to any person having been 
in the same capacity here, that the annual salary of an Ameri- 


188 


A MER1 CA iV DIPL OM A C 1 '. 


can minister is insufficient to support a man with a family— 
I say not in the style of high official rank, but in the decency 
becoming a private gentleman.” 

Mr. Monroe, in a letter to the auditor in 1820, 
says: 

“ The reasons in favor of an increase of the salaries of our 
ministers abroad are as strong as for an increase of that of 
those at home, if not much stronger ; and there is one reason, 
of great force, which is peculiarly applicable to the former. 
The spirit of our Government, and the manners of our people, 
not only authorize, but inculcate economy at home in the ex¬ 
penditure of our public functionaries ; but that indulgence 
cannot be enjoyed by those abroad, however consonant it may 
be to their habits and inclinations, or necessary to their cir¬ 
cumstances.” 

Mr. McLane, who had been minister to Great 
Britain, said in his Report as Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury, in 1831 : 

“ At some foreign courts, and those whose relations to the 
United States are the most important, the expenses incident 
to the station are found so burdensome as only to be met by 
the private resources of the minister. The tendency of this is 
to throw those high trusts altogether into the hands of the 
rich, which is certainly not according to the genius of our 
system.” 

Such quotations might be indefinitely multiplied. 
The Report of Mr. Webster, in 1852, is full of similar 
statements.* Since that time, as has been said before, 

* Senate Ex. Doc., No. 93, 33d Congress, 1st Session. 


DIPL OMA TIC OFFICIALS. 


189 


the expenses of living, in all the capitals of Europe, 
have increased by from fifty to two hundred per 
centum. 

I allow myself, however, one further quotation, 
which is both interesting and authoritative, from a 
private letter of Mr. Wheaton : 

“ The Austrian cabinet is on the point of forming a new 
commercial union with the states of Northern and Central Italy, 
and it should be the duty of our minister at Vienna to keep 
watch of this movement and turn it to our advantage. If Mr. 
Calhoun could have seen with his own eyes how badly our 
affairs have been managed for years in the different European 
courts, from ignorance of official forms and of that language 
which is the universal tongue of diplomacy, without which a 
diplomatist might as well be deaf and dumb, as well as from 
the lack of that experience which, in our profession as in every 
other, gives a decided advantage to those who possess it, he 
would be convinced of the importance of having the principal 
missions , at least, occupied by men who possess these qual¬ 
ities. At least those who unite the desired qualities ought to 
be employed where they can do most service, while incapable 
men should be turned out without favor or partiality. Those 
who have served the country faithfully and skilfully ought to 
be encouraged and transferred from one court to another, 
which is the only advancement that our system admits of. The 
only way of making up for the insufficient salaries given under 
our system would be to vote new outfits, for those who have 
deserved them, whenever the interest of the country would 
justify and demand their transfer to another post. Such is my 
way of looking at things ; it is the result of much observation 
and reflection. 

u I believe that there is still much to do to advance our 


190 


A MERIC AIV DIPL 0MA C Y. 


political and commercial interests in Europe, and nothing 
vexes me more than to hear an American minister say, what¬ 
ever the court may be to which he is accredited, “ There is 
nothing to do here” or “ Nothing can be done.” I do not 
know a post, whether important or not, which could not offer 
a zealous, active, and skilful agent the opportunity of doing 
something for the interests of his country.”* 


* Wheaton’s Letter of May 15, 1836, Lawrence’s Commentaire, i., 83. 


PART II. 


AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO PRO¬ 
TECT COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION. 







4 


IV. 

THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 


Necessity of Protecting Merchant Vessels in the Mediterra¬ 
nean.—Our Situation after the Revolution.—Application 
to France.—Mr. Adams and the Tripoline Ambassador.— 
Adams for Tribute, Jefferson for War.—Treaty with 
Morocco.—Lamb at Algiers.—The Mathurins.—Effect 
upon us of the Peace between Portugal and Algiers.— 
The American Captives.—Donaldson’s Treaty with Algiers 
in 1795. —Its Cost.—The Dey.—Treaty with Tripoli.— 
Eaton’s Negotiations with Tunis.—War with Tripoli.— 
Lear’s Treaty.—War with Algiers.—Decatur.—Lord Ex¬ 
mouth.—New Treaty with the United States in 1816. 

So many changes have taken place during the 
present century that it is difficult for us to realize 
that only seventy years ago the Mediterranean was 
so unsafe that the merchant ships of every nation 
stood in danger of capture by pirates, unless they 
were protected either by an armed convoy or by 
tribute paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we 
can scarcely open a book of travels during the last 
century without mention being made of the immense 
risks to which every one was exposed who ventured 
by sea from Marseilles to Naples. The French 


194 


A MERIC A iV DIPL OMA C Y. 


dramatist Regnard was captured on an English ship 
going from Civita Vecchia to Toulon, and served for 
a time as a slave in Algiers at the end of the seven¬ 
teenth century; and Jacob Leisler, who played such 
an important part in the early colonial history of 
New York, suffered the same fate before his arrival 
in this country. To go much further back, the great 
Cervantes was a slave in Algiers during four years. 
We all remember how Goethe in his Italian journey 
waited a long time at Naples for the corvette which 
made the fortnightly passage between that place and 
Palermo, and how afterward at Palermo he tells us 
of seeing the Prince Pallagonia walking through the 
streets with his footman, taking up contributions 
for the purpose of ransoming captives in Barbary. 
“ This collection never produces much,” he says, “but 
the subject remains in men’s memories; and those 
who have held back during their lifetime often leave 
large sums for this purpose at their death.” 

The European states, in order to protect their com¬ 
merce, had the choice either of paying certain sums 
per head for each captive, which in reality was a 
premium on capture, or of buying entire freedom for 
their commerce by the expenditure of large sums 
yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with 
Algiers, was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay 
$200,000 annually, besides large presents distributed 
according to custom every ten years, and a great sum 


THE P/RA TICAL BARBARY ROWERS. 


. 195 


given down.* The peace of Spain with Algiers is said 
to have cost from three to five millions of dollars. 
There is reason to believe that at the same time 
England was paying an annual tribute of about $280,- 
000. England was the only power sufficiently strong 
on the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to 
keep her own position as mistress of the seas she pre¬ 
ferred to leave them in existence in order to be a 
scourge to the commerce of other European powers, 
and even to support them by paying a sum so great 
that other states might find it difficult to make peace 
with them. 

When the Revolution broke out we no longer had 
the safeguards for our commerce that had been given 
to us by England, and it was therefore that in our 
very first negotiations for a treaty with France we de¬ 
sired to have an article inserted into the treaty that 
the King of France should secure the inhabitants of 
the United States, and their vessels and effects, against 
all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary 
powers.t It was found impossible to insert this 
article in the treaty of 1778, and instead of that the 
king agreed to “ employ his good offices and interpo¬ 
sition in order to provide as fully and efficaciously as 
possible for the benefit, conveniency, and safety of the 



* Report of Mr. Jefferson, December 28, 1790, State Papers, 
x., 45* 

f Secret Journals of Congress, ii., 10, 28. 


196 


A MERIC A iV DIPL OMA C Y. 


United States against the princes and the states of 
Barbary or their subjects.” * v / 

According to a report made in 1790 by Mr. Jeffer¬ 
son, when Secretary of State, “before the War of In¬ 
dependence, about one-sixth of the wheat and flour 
exported from the United States, and about one- 
fourth in value of their dried and pickled fish, and 
some rice, found their best markets in the Mediterra¬ 
nean ports.” There were then employed in the trade 
about twenty thousand tons of navigation and twelve 
thousand seamen.t Owing to the Revolution this 
trade ceased for some time entirely; but after we had 
gained the right to fish on the Banks, our merchant 
vessels began again to go to the Mediterranean, and 
the trade revived. This could not but be noticed 
by the Barbary rulers, who saw a strange flag, hitherto 
unknown, and which certainly had paid no tribute to 
them, coming gradually into the Mediterranean.^ In 
July, 1785, the schooner Maria was taken, off Cape 
St. Vincent, by an Algerine corsair, and five days 
afterward the ship Dauphin was taken by another 
Algerine, fifty leagues westward of Lisbon. The offi¬ 
cers and crews, twenty-one persons in number, were 
reduced to slavery, although the captains were far 
better treated than the men.§ One vessel, the brig 

* Treaty of 1778, Article VIII. f State Papers, x., 42. 

t Lyman’s Diplomacy of the United States, ii., 339, 340. 

§ State Papers, x., 56. 


TIIE P IRA TIC A L BA RBA RY TO l VERS. 1 9 J 

Betsy, had indeed been captured the year before 
and carried into Tangier, but the crew had been liber¬ 
ated through the good offices of the Spanish court.* 
In concluding his report Mr. Jefferson said : 

“ It rests with Congress to decide between war, tribute, and 
ransom, as the means of re-establishing our Mediterranean 
commerce.” 

Already, in May, 1784, Congress had authorized a 
commission to be issued to Mr. Adams,' Dr. Franklin, 
and Mr. Jefferson, empowering them either directly 
or through commissioners to treat with the Barbary 
powers. In March, 1785, these commissioners applied 
to the French minister, Count de Vergennes, asking 
his advice about the conduct of negotiations, and re¬ 
questing the good offices of Louis XVI. to be inter¬ 
posed with the Emperor of Morocco. After Franklin 
had returned to America, in July, 1785, Adams and 
Jefferson, finding their hands full with European ne¬ 
gotiations, appointed Thomas Barclay to negotiate 
with Morocco, and John Lamb to negotiate with 
Algiers. A few months afterward Jefferson was per¬ 
suaded to go to London and meet Abdurrahman, the 
Tripolitan ambassador, with whom Mr. Adams had 
already had some discussion. Mr. Adams’ account of 
these preliminary conferences is amusing. He writes 
to Mr. Jay: 


* Jefferson’s Works, i., 428. 


198 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


“ At a late levee the king, in conversation with one of the 
foreign ministers, was pleased to say ‘that the Tripoline 
ambassador refused to confer with his ministers, and insisted 
on an audience ; but that nothing had been said at it more 
than that Tripoli and England were at peace, and desirous to 
continue so.’ His Majesty added, ‘ All he wants is a present, 
and his expenses borne to Vienna and Denmark.’ 

“ If nothing more was said at the audience, there are not 
wanting persons in England who will find means to stimulate 
this African to stir up his countrymen against American ves¬ 
sels. It may reasonably be suspected that his present visit 
is chiefly with a view to the United States, to draw them into 
a treaty of peace, which implies tribute, or at least presents ; 
or to obtain aids from England to carry on a war against us. 
Feeling his appearance here to be ominous, like that of other 
irregular bodies, which, ‘ from their hair shake pestilence and 
war ’ I thought at first to avoid him ; but, finding that all the 
other foreign ministers had made their visits, and that he would 
take amiss a longer inattention, it was judged necessary to 
call at his door for the form ; but, when the attempt was made, 
which was last evening, so late that there was no suspicion of 
his being visible, the ambassador was announced at home, and 
ready to receive the visitant. It would scarcely be reconcil¬ 
able to the dignity of Congress to read a detail of the cere¬ 
monies which attended the conference ; it would be more 
proper to write them to harlequin, for the amusement of the 
gay at the New York theatre. 

“ It is sufficient to say that his Excellency made many in¬ 
quiries concerning America, the climate, soil, heat, cold, etc., 
and observed, ‘ It is a very great country, but Tripoli is at war 
with it.' In return, it was asked how there could be war 
between two nations when there had been no hostility, injury, 
insult, or provocation on either side. His Excellency replied 
‘That Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco were the 


THE PIRATICAL BARB ARY POWERS. 


199 


sovereigns of the Mediterranean ; and that no nation could 
navigate that sea without a treaty of peace with them.’ * 

“ It was the delight of his soul, and the whole pleasure of 
his life to do good ; and he was zealous to embrace an oppor¬ 
tunity, which now presented itself, of doing a great deal. The 
time was critical, and the sooner peace was made the better; 
for, from what passed before he left home, he was convinced 
if the treaty should be delayed another year, it would, after 
that, be very difficult to make it. If any considerable number 
of vessels and prisoners should be taken, it would be hard to 
persuade the Turks, especially the Algerines, to desist. A war 
between Christian and Christian was mild, and prisoners, on 
either side, were treated with humanity ; but a war between 
Turk and Christian was horrible, and prisoners were sold into 
slavery. Although he was himself a Mussulman, he must still 
say he thought it a very rigid law ; but, as he could not alter 
it, he was desirous of preventing its operation, or, at least, of 
softening it, as far as his influence extended. . . . He 

‘ called God to witness/ that is to say, he swore by his beard, 
which is a sacred oath with them, ‘ that his motive to this 
earnestness for peace, although it might be of some benefit to 
himself, was the desire of doing good.’ 

“ This man is either a consummate politician in art and 
address, or he is a benevolent and wise man. Time will dis¬ 
cover whether he disguises an interested character, or is in¬ 
deed the philosopher he pretends to be. If he is the latter, 
Providence seems to have opened to us an opportunity of con¬ 
ducting this thorny business to a happy conclusion.” f 

Adams and Jefferson found the terms too exorbi¬ 
tant. The ambassador demanded as the lowest price 
for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers 

* February 17, 1786, Life and Works of John Adams, viii., 
372, f John Adams’ Works, viii., 373, 


200 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


and £3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably 
treat on the same terms ; but he could not answer for 
Algiers or Morocco. Peace with all four powers 
would cost at least $1,000,000, and Congress had ap¬ 
propriated only $80,000. 

That their minds were full of this subject may be 
seen from the constant references to it in their corre¬ 
spondence. At one time there was a rumor that Dr. 
Franklin had been captured on his way home, and 
taken to Algiers, and “ that he bore his slavery to ad¬ 
miration.” * 

Mr. Adams was strongly opposed to war, on ac¬ 
count of the expense, and preferred the payment of 
tribute. 

“As long as France, England, Holland, the Emperor, etc., 
will submit to be tributary to these robbers, and even en¬ 
courage them, to what purpose should we make war upon 
them ? The resolution might be heroic, but would not be 
wise. The contest would be unequal. They can injure us 
very sensibly, but we cannot hurt them in the smallest de¬ 
gree. . . . If we could even send a force sufficient to burn 
a town, their unfeeling governors would only insult and de¬ 
ride, . . . and think no more of it than if we had killed so 
many caterpillars upon an apple-tree. . . . Unless it were 

possible, then, to persuade the great maritime powers of Eu¬ 
rope to unite in the suppression of these piracies, it would be 
very imprudent for us to entertain any thoughts of contending 
with them, and will only lay a foundation, by irritating their 


* Jefferson’s Works, i., 449 ; Jefferson to Franklin, October 5, 1785. 


THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 


201 


passions and increasing their insolence and their demands, 
for long and severe repentance.” * 

Mr. Adams believed that war would be greatly 
more expensive than tribute, 

“ And when you leave off fighting, you must pay as much 
money as it would cost you now for peace. We ought not to 
fight them at all, unless we determine to fight them forever. 
The thought, I fear, is too rugged for our people to bear. To 
fight them at the expense of millions, and make peace, after 
all, by giving more money and larger presents than would 
now procure perpetual peace seems not to be economical.” f 

Mr. Jefferson quite as decidedly preferred war. 
He wrote to Mr. Adams : 

“ i. Justice is in favor of this opinion. 2. Honor favors 
it. 3. It will procure us respect in Europe ; and respect is a 
safeguard to interest. 4. It will arm the federal head with 
the safest of all the instruments of coercion over its delinquent 
members. 5. I think it least expensive. 6.. Equally effect¬ 
ual.”!: 

He thought, too, that America would not have to 
fight alone, but would be joined by Naples and Por¬ 
tugal, if not by other powers. 

“ You will probably find the tribute to all these powers 
make such a proportion of the federal taxes as that every man 
will feel them sensibly when he pays those taxes. The ques- 

* Adams to Jay, December 15, 1784, Adams’ Works, viii., 218. 

t Adams to Jefferson, June 6 and July 3, 1786; July 31, 1786, Adams 
Works, viii., 400, 406, 411. 

f Jefferson to Adams, July 11, 1786, Jefferson’s Works, i., 591. 


202 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


tion is, whether their peace or war will be cheapest ? But it 
is a question which should be addressed to our honor as well as 
our avarice. Nor does it respect us as to these pirates only, 
but as to the nations of Europe. If we wish our commerce to 
be free and uninsulted, we must let these nations see that we 
have an energy which at present they disbelieve. The low 
opinion they entertain of our powers cannot fail to involve us 
soon in a naval war.” * 

Similar remarks are found in other letters. Jef¬ 
ferson fortified himself with the opinion of Count 
d’Estaing as to the means to be employed. He 
thought a perpetual blockade the best. The expe¬ 
rience of Massiac had shown this to be effectual. 
“ Bombardments,” said d’Estaing, “are but transitory. 
It is, if I may so express myself, like breaking glass 
windows with guineas.” t 

“ I was very unwilling,” says Jefferson, in his Autobiog¬ 
raphy“ that we should acquiesce in the European humilia¬ 
tion of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates, and endeavored 
to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depre¬ 
dations from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to 
their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their govern¬ 
ments, articles of a special confederation. . . . Spain had 

just concluded a treaty with Algiers, at the expense of three 
millions of dollars, and did not like to relinquish the benefit of 
that until the other party should fail in their observance of it. 
Portugal, Naples, the Two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark, 
and Sweden, were favorably disposed to such an association ; 
but their representatives at Paris expressed apprehensions 

* Jefferson to John Page, August 20, -1785, Jefferson’s Works, i., 401. 

t Count d’Estaing to Jefferson, May 17, 1784, conf. State Papers, x., 54. 


THE PIRATICAL BARB ARY POWERS. 203 

that France would interfere, and, either openly or secretly, 
support the Barbary powers ; and they required that I should 
ascertain the dispositions of the Count de Vergennes on the 
subject. I had therefore taken occasion to inform him of 
what we were proposing, and, therefore, did not think it 
proper to insinuate any doubt of the fair conduct of his gov¬ 
ernment ; but stating our propositions, I mentioned the appre¬ 
hensions entertained by us, that England would interfere in 
behalf of those piratical governments. ‘ She dares not do it,’ 
said he. I pressed it no further. The other agents were 
satisfied with this indication of his sentiments, and nothing 
was now wanting to bring it into direct and formal considera¬ 
tion but the assent of our Government, and their authority to 
make a formal proposition. I communicated to them the 
favorable prospect of protecting our commerce from the Bar¬ 
bary depredations, and for such a continuance of time, as, 
by an exclusion of them from the sea, to change their habits 
and characters from a predatory to an agricultural people ; 
toward which, however, it was expected they would contribute 
a frigate and its expenses, to be in constant cruise. But they 
were in no condition to make any such engagement. Their 
recommendatory powers for obtaining contributions were so 
openly neglected by the several states, that they declined an 
engagement which they were conscious they could not fulfil 
with punctuality ; and so it fell through.” * 

Every other method having failed, Barclay pro¬ 
ceeded to Morocco, and Lamb to Algiers. 

Barclay concluded a treaty with the Emperor of 
Morocco on July 16, 1787, without particular diffi¬ 
culty. This was, I believe, the first treaty made with 
any power in which neither tribute nor presents were 

* Jefferson’s Works, i., 65-67. 


204 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


stipulated ; although without a naval force it was 
naturally impossible to secure its accurate observance 
except by occasional presents. The treaty was con¬ 
cluded for fifty years. Soon afterward the Emperor 
died, and it was necessary to have it recognized by 
his successor. Twenty thousand dollars were appro¬ 
priated for this purpose, which were distributed in 
presents, and in 1795 a formal ratification of the treaty 
was made. In 1802 there were some slight diffi¬ 
culties, and the consul was ordered to leave Tangier 
because the United States had not sent presents 
and had refused a convoy to some Moorish vessels. 
When the consul informed the Emperor that the 
President had ordered a hundred gun-carriages to be 
made and sent to him as a present, he was allowed 
to remain. In 1803 a Moorish corsair captured the 
American brig Celia, but this was soon recaptured by 
the frigate Philadelphia, and the act was disavowed 
by the Moorish authorities. When hostile demon¬ 
strations were threatened in consequence of this 
breach of the treaty, the Emperor proclaimed that 
“ the American nation are still, as they were, in 
peace and friendship with our person, exalted of 
God.” At the expiration of the forty-ninth year 
the treaty of 1787 was renewed for another fifty 
years. Our only other treaty with Morocco was a 
convention, into which, with most of the European 
powers, we entered in 1865, for the maintaining of a 


THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 20 5 

lighthouse off Cape Spartel, for which the sum of 
$325 is now paid annually. 

Lamb, however, entirely failed in his negotiations 
at Algiers. He had been sent thither by Jefferson 
and Adams, with many misgivings; but he had 
brought recommendations from Congress, had “ fol¬ 
lowed for many years the Barbary trade, and seemed 
intimately acquainted with those states.” They did 
not feel sure either of his abilities or of his integrity ; 
they sent a Mr. Randall with him as clerk to “attend 
to his proceedings,” and give information if he saw 
anything going amiss. When afterward, under the 
pretext of ill health, Lamb declined to return either 
to Congress, to Mr. Adams or to Mr. Jefferson, they 
feared some malversation. “ I am persuaded that an 
angel sent on this business,” says Mr. Jefferson, “and 
so much limited in his terms, could have done noth¬ 
ing. But should Congress propose to try the line of 
negotiation again, I think they will perceive that 
Lamb is not a proper agent.” * Richard O’Brien, 
one of the captured sea-captains, wrote to Mr. Car¬ 
michael, our charge d’affaires at Madrid, on June 24, 
1790, 

“ That Mr. Lamb could speak nothing but English ; that the 
French Gonsul and Conde d’Espilly, the Spanish ambassador, 
would not take the trouble to explain Mr. Lamb’s propositions, 
as the terms of the peace would be advantageous to the Alge- 


* Jefferson’s Works, i., 438, 605. 


20 6 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C K 


rines ; and that the French and Spaniards advised Mr: Lamb 
to return to America, that the Algerines would not make 
peace with the United States of America.” * 

Subsequently the Vekil Hadji said to Mr. O’Brien 
that 

“ He hoped, if the Americans sent an American to Algiers to 
make the peace, they would send a man who could speak the 
Spanish or Italian language. He ridiculed much the sending 
a man that no one could understand what he had to say.” f 

About O’Brien himself, John Quincy Adams wrote, 
thirty years later : 

“ O’Brien is an old Irishman, who was once consul-gen¬ 
eral at Algiers, chiefly because he had been nine or ten years 
a slave there. He was a master of a vessel, and is an exact 
copy of Smollett’s novel sailors. His discourse is patched up 
entirely of sea phrases, and he prides himself upon nothing so 
much as his language. ” X 

The Dey, however, received Mr. Lamb and his 
secretary, Mr Randall, politely, and even informed 
them that he was well acquainted with the exploits 
of General Washington, for whom he felt great admi¬ 
ration ; but as he never expected to see him, he 
hoped that Congress would do him the favor to send 
him a full-length portrait, that he might hang it up in 
his palace. The feeling of regard for General Wash¬ 
ington did not, however, diminish the prices- of the 
captives, which, according to Mr. Lamb, were $6,000 

* 1 Foreign Relations, folio ed., 117. f Ibid. 
t J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, iv., 403. 


THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 20 / 


each for three captains, $4,000 for the mates and pas¬ 
sengers, and $1,400 for each of the seamen, besides a 
customary duty of eleven per cent, on the whole 
amount. This made about $2,800 a captive, while 
the agents had authority to offer only $200. The 
last captives redeemed by the French had cost $300 
a man, which, with the expenses, had amounted to 
about $500. 

There existed at this time a religious order in Paris 
called properly the Society of the Holy Trinity for 
the Redemption of Captives—more commonly Ma- 
thurins from the church of St. Mathurin at Paris, 
which belonged to them—or Brothers of the Redemp¬ 
tion. They were instituted in 1199 by two religious 
men for ransoming Christians captured by the infidels. 
Recourse was now had to this charitable order by Mr. 
Jefferson, and the general of the Mathurins gladly 
gave his services. But he required that the utmost 
secrecy should be observed ; for if it were known that 
they were buying the slaves of other nations the 
price of their own countrymen would be raised. He 
required, also, that the allowances for the support of 
the captives, larger than those given by other nations, 
which it was believed came from public sources, 
should be stopped, as no Americans had ever been 
captured before. It was best to impress upon the Dey 
that they were supported solely by charity; and it 
was important to keep the price low, even should 


208 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


they remain longer in imprisonment, lest the Alge¬ 
rines should pursue the Americans with greater eager¬ 
ness and future captives have to pay a higher price. 
In 1789 a sum of money was deposited with the 
Mathurins, and the general immediately began bar¬ 
gaining. But, unfortunately, the price of captives 
had not much fallen. In July, 1790, only one had 
been ransomed, while six had died. The Revolution 
then put a stop to the proceedings of the Mathurins, 
by the abolition of all religious orders. As there was 
no question of obtaining their liberation by force, for 
the sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen 
men were allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten 
years. 

In 1792,011 the proposition of General Washington, 
the Senate agreed to conclude a treaty with Algiers, 
provided that it should not cost more than $40,000, as 
a ransom for the thirteen Americans—$25,000 as a 
present to the Dey on its signature, and $25,000 more 
annually. The negotiations were entrusted to Admiral 
Paul Jones, and were considered so confidential and 
secret that all the papers were made out in Mr. Jeffer¬ 
son’s own handwriting. There seems to have been a 
suspicion that there might be some opposition at 
Algiers on the part of other powers, for it was known 
that a Mr. Simpson, of Gibraltar, by the direction of 
the Messrs. Bulkley of Lisbon, had offered a contract 
to the Dey to redeem all the American captives for 


THE EZRA TIC A L BA RBA RY BO IVERS. 200 

$34,792. It was not known who the parties to this 
contract were; it was, indeed, never carried out, and 
Jones was instructed to deny all knowledge of it.* 

Jones unfortunately died at this time, and Barclay, 
who succeeded him, also died in Lisbon. There was 
therefore some delay before Colonel David Hum¬ 
phreys, the American minister at Lisbon, was ap¬ 
pointed plenipotentiary. Eight hundred thousand 
dollars were placed at his disposal. Humphreys never 
went directly to Algiers; but while in the south of 
Spain, endeavoring to get across to the Barbary coast, 
received the unwelcome, but not entirely unlooked for, 
news that the Portuguese had made a twelvemonth’s 
truce with Algiers. The Portuguese squadron, there¬ 
fore, which had guarded the Straits of Gibraltar, was 
withdrawn, and that allowed the Algerine fleet to get 
out into the Atlantic. The immediate result of this 
was that in a single cruise ten of our vessels were cap¬ 
tured, and in November, 1793, the number of prison¬ 
ers at Algiers amounted to one hundred and fifteen 
men, among whom there remained only ten of the 
original captives of 1785. 

The Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs as¬ 
sured Mr. Church, our consul at Lisbon, that the 
truce 

11 Was as unexpected to the court of Portugal as it could be 
to us, and if it was not quite so unwelcome, yet it was by no 

*Conf. State Papers, x., 261-8. 


14 


210 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


means agreeable to their court, who never intended to conclude 
either a peace or truce with the Dey, without giving timely 
notice to all their friends, that they might avoid the dangers 
to which they might otherwise be exposed by trusting to the 
protection of the Portuguese ships of war stationed in the 
Mediterranean.” 

Portugal had indeed expressed to England and 
Spain a desire for their co-operation in obtaining a 
lasting peace, and the English consul at Algiers had 
therefore, not only without authority, but without 
even consulting the Portuguese government, concluded 
this truce in behalf of Portugal. England guaranteed 
that Portugal should pay a tribute equal to one-third 
of that paid by Spain, although the Portuguese had 
refused to pay one farthing. 

“ The conduct of the British in this business leaves no room 
to doubt or mistake their object, which was evidently aimed 
at us, and proves that this envy, jealousy, and hatred will never 
be appeased, and that they will leave nothing unattempted to 
effect our ruin. As a further confirmation it is worthy of re¬ 
mark that the same British agent obtained a truce at the 
same time between the states of Holland and the Dey, for six 
months, whereby we and the Hanse towns are now left the only 
prey to those barbarians.”* 

On Mr. Church’s representations the Portuguese 
arranged to give our merchant vessels the convoy of 
their ships of war whenever practicable. There were 

* Church to the Secretary of State, October 12, 1793, conf. 
State Papers, x., 279. 


THE PIR A TIC A L BA RBA RY POP VERS. 


21 I 


then sixteen American and thirty Hanseatic vessels 
in the port of Lisbon. 

Mr. Thomas Pinckney, the American minister at 
London, had a conversation on this subject with Lord 
Grenville, who assured him that England 

“ Had not the least intention or thought of injuring us ; that 
they conceived they had done no more than their friendship 
for a good ally required of them ; but that the measure was 
also particularly advantageous to themselves, as they wanted 
the co-operation of the Portuguese fleet to act against their 
common enemy, which it was at liberty to do when no longer 
employed in blocking up the Algerine fleet.” 

He assured him that no opposition would be made 
to the Portuguese convoy to vessels already in their 
harbors.* 

Meanwhile the captives were sending home peti¬ 
tions to Congress begging that something should be 
done for them ; and Captain O’Brien, in a remarkable 
letter to the President, considered that the only ef¬ 
fectual means that could be employed were a fleet of 
thirty ships.t Colonel Humphreys wrote : 

“ If we mean to have a commerce, we must have a naval 
force, to a certain extent, to defend it. Besides, the very 
semblance of this would tend more toward enabling us to 
maintain our neutrality in the actual critical state of our af¬ 
fairs in Europe than all the declarations, reasonings, conces¬ 
sions, and sacrifices that can possibly be made.” t 

* Conf. State Papers, x., 305. 
t Ibid., 325. tlbid.,328. 


212 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


Congress began at last to see affairs from the same 
point of view, and on January 2, 1794, the House of 
Representatives resolved that a “ naval force adequate 
for the protection of the commerce of the United 
States against the Algerine forces ought to be pro¬ 
vided.” In the same year authority was given to 
build six frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels 
to be equipped as galleys. 

Negotiations, however, continued to go on. Pierre 
Eric Skjoldebrand, the brother of the Swedish consul 
at Algiers, having become interested in the fate of the 
Americans, gave some advice and offered his assistance 
to our Government. He wrote that the European 
jealousies at Algiers were so great that it was difficult 
for any nation to obtain a peace; and that the Dey 
wars averse to making peace at any price, 

‘‘ Because,” said he, “ if I were to make peace with everybody, 
what should I do with my corsairs ? What should I do with 
my soldiers ? They would take off my head for the want of 
other prizes, not being able to live upon their miserable allow¬ 
ance.” 

But Skjoldebrand thought that by the payment of 
a sufficient amount of money in ways which he speci¬ 
fied, together with an annual tribute and occasional 
presents, peace might be obtained.* 

In March, 1795, Joseph Donaldson, who had been 
appointed consul at Tunis and Tripoli, was associated 
* Conf. State Papers, x., 314. 


THE P IRA T1CAL BARBARY BO lVERS. 


213 


in the negotiations with Humphreys, to whom Joel 
Barlow, the poet of the “ Columbiad,” was afterward 
added, and they were authorized to employ the ser¬ 
vices of Skjoldebrand. Much seems to have de¬ 
pended on the manner in which the negotiation was 
carried on, and stress was laid upon the fact that 
the Americans had previously employed the Jewish 
house of Bassara & Co., all whose efforts had been 
countermined by their commercial rivals, Bacri & 
Co., who were the confidential agents of the Dey. 
By transferring the business from Bassara to Bacri, 
and by liberal promises, the Swedes had got the mat¬ 
ters into such train that Donaldson, who arrived in 
Algiers only on the 3d of September, was able to con¬ 
clude a treaty on the 5th, the very day on which 
Barlow arrived.* 

In making this treaty, however, we had been 
obliged to follow the usage of European powers—not 
only pay a large sum for the purpose of obtaining 
peace, but an annual tribute, in order to keep our ves¬ 
sels from being captured in the future. The total 
cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,- 
463.25. That included $642,500 paid at Algiers to 
the Dey and to his officials and his brokers, a frigate 

* Ibid., 449. See also the Report of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, of January 4, 1797, ibid., 453. The treaty is pub¬ 
lished in the Official Collection of Treaties of the United 
States. 


214 


A MERIC A A T DIPL OMA C Y. 


of thirty-six guns, built and furnished in the United 
States, and the naval stores and tribute of the first 
year. We were bound to pay besides this sum about 
$21,600 a year in naval stores; $20,000 on the pres¬ 
entation of a consul ; biennial presents to the offi¬ 
cers of the government, estimated at $17,000, as 
well as incidental and continual presents on the pro¬ 
motion of the principal officers of the Dey and 
regency, and for the attainment of any important ob¬ 
ject. Of these last no estimate could be made. 

The United States fell behind in their payments, 
and in 1798 sent four armed vessels to the Dey as 
arrearages. William Eaton, who had been appointed 
consul to Tunis, accompanied this fleet, and thus de¬ 
scribes his presentation to the Dey : 

“ We proceeded from the American house to the courtyard 
of the palace, uncovered our heads, entered the area of the 
hall, ascended a winding maze of five flights of stairs to a 
narrow, dark entry, leading to a contracted apartment of 
about twelve by eight feet, the private audience-room. Here 
we took off our shoes, and entering the cave (for so it seemed), 
with small apertures of light with iron grates, we were shown 
to a huge, shaggy beast, sitting on his rump upon a low bench, 
covered with a cushion of embroidered velvet, with his hind 
legs gathered up like a tailor or a bear. On our approach to 
him he reached out his fore paw as if to receive something 
to eat. Our guide exclaimed, ‘ Kiss the Dey’s hand !’ The 
consul-general bowed very elegantly and kissed it, and we 
followed his example in succession. The animal seemed at 
that moment to be in a harmless mode ; he grinned several 


THE PIRATICAL BARB ARY TOWERS. 


215 


times, but made very little noise. Having performed this 
ceremony, and standing a few moments in silent agony, we 
had leave to take our shoes and other property, and leave the 
den, without any other injury than the humility of being 
obliged, in this involuntary manner, to violate the second com¬ 
mand of God and offend common decency.” * 

A treaty was made by Barlow with Tripoli in No¬ 
vember, 1796, on similar terms to that made with 
Algiers; indeed, the Dey of Algiers advanced to the 
United States the money necessary to obtain the 
peace ; and the treaty was made under his guarantee. 
By the tenth article the money and presents given to 
the Dey were to be considered full payment, and no 
pretence of any periodical tribute for further payment 
was ever to be made by either party. This clause 
naturally did not hold good. The Tripolitans became 
dissatisfied with the more advantageous terms which 
had been obtained by the Algerines ; and even had a 
dispute been referred to the Dey of Algiers, as had 
been stipulated for, it could not be expected that he 
would decide in our favor. The eleventh article is 
curious. It reads : 

“ As the Government of the United States is not in any sense 
founded on the Christian religion ; as it has in itself no char¬ 
acter of enmity against the laws, religion, and tranquillity of 
Mussulmans; and as the said States have never entered into 
any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, 
it is declared by the party that no pretext arising from relig- 

* Life of William Eaton, by C. C. Felton, 182. 


216 


A ME RICA iV DIPL OMA C Y. 


ious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the har¬ 
mony existing between the two countries.” 

For the negotiations with Tunis, Barlow had em¬ 
ployed a French trader by the name of Famin, who 
in 1797 succeeded in concluding a treaty with the 
Bey. But it contained some articles to which great 
objection was made by our Government. One of 
these, the fourteenth, the Senate refused to ratify. It 
had provided that Americans sending goods to Tunis, 
in American vessels, should pay three per cent, duty, 
while those sent by foreigners, on board American 
ships, should pay ten per cent, duty ; and that all Tu¬ 
nisians sending goods to the United States, under any 
flag whatever, should pay only three per cent. duty. 
Famin appeared to be something of a rascal, and it 
was thought that this article, which Barlow said was 
not in the original document, was inserted that he 
himself might reap the profits of any direct trade 
between Tunis and the United States. Two other 
articles were also objected to; one that a barrel of 
gunpowder should be given the Tunisian government 
for every gun fired in saluting an American ship of 
war; and the other that the government of Tunis 
might compel an American captain to put his vessel 
at their service at such freight as the government 
chose to prescribe. Mr. William Eaton, who had 
served in the army, was sent out as consul to Tunis 
at the same time with Mr. Cathcart, who was maine 

? 00 


THE PIRATICAL BARB ARY POWERS . 


217 


in the same capacity to Tripoli. He was authorized 
to procure a revision of the articles to which objec¬ 
tion had been made. Strangely enough, the greatest 
difficulty he found was with regard to the rates of 
duties. The Bey of Tunis objected to putting the 
United States on the footing of the most favored 
nation, as he would never be able to find out, on ac¬ 
count of the distance, what the various duties imposed 
in America were. So long as the terms were fixed, 
whether one, ten, or a hundred per cent., he would 
agree to it. Besides this, however, he insisted on the 
barrel of gunpowder for each gun fired in a salute. 

11 ‘ However trifling it may appear to you,’ the Bey said, ‘ to 
me it is important. Fifteen barrels of gunpowder will furnish 
a cruiser which may capture a prize and net me $100,000.’ 
We told him the concession was so degrading that our nation 
would not yield to it—both justice and honor forbade—and 
we did not doubt the world would view the demand as they 
did the concession. ‘ You consult your honor,’ said he ; ‘I, 
my interest ; but if you wish to save your honor in this in¬ 
stance, give me fifty barrels of powder annually, and I will 
agree to the alteration.’ ” 


There was also a difficulty about presents. The 
Bey demanded certain articles of jewelry which could 
only be procured in London at a great price. When 
Eaton offered him even $50,000, in place of the jew¬ 
elry, he refused, on the ground that he was accustomed 
to presents, but did not know their value, and had 


2l8 


AMERICAiV DIPL OMA C V. 


# 

plenty of cash. Finally the treaty was arranged 
nearly on our terms ; but it cost us $107,000.“ 

The whole cost of buying freedom for our ships 
from the Barbary powers had amounted, in 1802, ex¬ 
clusive of sundry expenses incurred but not yet paid, 
to over two million dollars ; + enough, if we may take 
the cost of the frigate sent to Algiers as an example, 
to have built and equipped twenty large frigates. 
Half of this, if spent on naval appropriations in the 
beginning, would have saved us the tribute of many 
years ; for it would have procured peace with all these 
powers without payment or ransom. 

Indeed, until we sent a naval force into the Medi¬ 
terranean the treaties did us little good. In less than 
three years after the signature of the peace of Tripoli 
the consul was ordered to leave, and war was declared. 
The Bashaw was offended at not being as well paid 
as Algiers; and yet under the second year of the 
treaty he had received $12,000, and in the third $22,- 
000, although nothing had been stipulated. He de¬ 
manded as a condition of sparing the United States 
the immediate payment of $225,000, and $25,000 
annually—the Swedes, with whom the United States 

* For a full account of the interesting negotiations of Eaton 
with Tunis, one should consult the Life of William Eaton, by 
the late Professor C. C. Felton, published in the ninth volume 
of Sparks’ Library of American Biography, 
f Foreign Relations, folio ed., li. 369. 


THE PIRATICAL BARB ARY POWERS. 


21$ 


seemed to have been put on an equality in all these 
wars, having agreed to these terms. Eaton wrote: 

11 If our Government yield these terms to the Bashaw of 
Tripoli, it will be absolutely necessary to make provision for a 
requisition of double the amount for the Bey of Tunis. Ab 
giers will also be respected according to rank. If the United 
States will have a free commerce in this sea, they must defend 
it. There is no alternative. The restless spirit of these ma¬ 
rauders cannot be restrained.” 

A small squadron of American vessels was sent to 
the Mediterranean and blockaded Tripoli in such a 
way that no attack was made on our trade until the 
Dey of Algiers and the Bey of Tunis showed signs of 
hostility, when the blockade was raised in order that 
the ships might act as convoys to merchant vessels. 
The war gradually became more active, and gave oc¬ 
casion for the display of great gallantry on the part of 
our naval officers. The frigate Philadelphia, which 
had unfortunately grounded on rocks at the entrance 
of the harbor of Tripoli, was captured and all its offi¬ 
cers and crew made prisoners. The Philadelphia was 
most gallantly destroyed a few months later by a de¬ 
tachment under the command of Decatur, then only a 
lieutenant. There were other small actions in which 
our officers showed distinguished bravery; but the 
most romantic incident of the war was the overland 
march through four hundred miles of desert, from 
Alexandria to Derna, of Eaton, in company with the 


220 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


ex-Bashaw Hamet, who had been dethroned by his 
brother, and whose cause, owing to Eaton’s represen¬ 
tations, our Government had taken up. Derna was 
occupied, the troops of the Bashaw were defeated, and 
we might have obtained a peace with Tripoli on our 
own terms, as well as have reinstated Hamet, accord¬ 
ing to our agreement with him, had not Colonel 
Tobias Lear,* consul-general at Algiers, under discre¬ 
tionary powers which had been granted to him, hastily 
made a treaty by which we gained none of the prin¬ 
ciples at stake, and simply bought a peace by the 
payment of $60,000 ransom for the American captives 
in Tripoli. To our great disgrace Hamet was aban¬ 
doned. Colonel Lear had put an article into the 
treaty that his family should be restored to him; but 
by a secret article, which was never officially com¬ 
municated to the United States Government, and 
was not known by them until some time later, instead 
of being obliged to restore the family at once, the 
Bashaw was given four years for that purpose. It 
may have been very unwise for us to have made the 
original agreement with Hamet to restore him to his 
throne ; but certainly we showed bad policy and bad 
faith in not keeping our agreement. 

We already had difficulties with Algiers. In Octo¬ 
ber, 1800, the Dey informed the consul that he in- 

* Colonel Lear had been private secretary to General Wash¬ 
ington. 


THE TIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 


221 


tended to send an ambassador to the Porte, at Con¬ 
stantinople, with the usual presents, and for that 
purpose he should choose the small American frigate 
George Washington, which happened to be at that time 
in the harbor of Algiers. At that time we had never 
had any relations with the Turks, nor had we any 
treaty with any of the Italian states who were at war 
with Algiers. The captain was, of course, without 
orders on the subject. To the objections of the con¬ 
sul the Dey threatened war, plunder, and captivity 
unless the vessel should go. More than this, it was 
necessary to hoist the Algerine flag at the maintop of 
the frigate. It was found impossible to refuse. Not 
only was the Algerine flag raised, but it was saluted 
with seven guns, a compliment which ultimately cost 
the United States $40,000. The only satisfaction 
was, that after arriving at her destination the George 
Washington was the first of our ships to raise the 
American flag in the Bosphorus. 

Grievances were easily made out by the Dey. The 
naval stores, he claimed, had not come up to the 
quality desired, and had been short in amount ; and, 
more than that, as the reckoning of the tribute was by 
Mohammedan years and not by the Christian calen¬ 
dar, we were found deficient to the amount of $27,000 
in the year 1812. The consul was ordered to leave 
the country, but not before he had paid this amount 
of money, which he was obliged to borrow at a heavy 


222 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


interest. At that time we had already paid in trib¬ 
utes to Algiers the sum of $378,363. The Dey had 
not chosen his time well, owing to the war with Great 
Britain. Very few of our ships were in the Mediter¬ 
ranean, and he captured only one small brig with a 
crew of eleven persons. After the treaty of peace 
had been made with England, we declared war 
against Algiers, and a naval force was sent out. Be¬ 
fore our ships arrived at Algiers, they had already 
captured an Algerine frigate and brig; and on their 
arrival they found that the whole Algerine corsair 
fleet was at sea. It was therefore very easy to inter¬ 
cept the ships as they returned to port. The next 
day after the arrival of the squadron, the Algerines 
proposed a treaty. The American negotiators, Com¬ 
modore Decatur and Mr. William Shaler, who had 
been sent out as consul-general, replied with a draft 
of a treaty, and with a declaration that the United 
States would never pay tribute under any form what¬ 
ever. The Dey asked for time to consider, but this 
was refused. He even pleaded for three hours. The 
reply was : 

“ Not a minute. If your squadron appears in sight before 
the treaty is actually signed by the Dey, and sent off with 
the American prisoners, ours will capture it.” 

An Algerine ship did come in sight, and every 
preparation was made for a fight; but within three 
hours, through the mediation of the Swedish consul, 


THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS . 


223 


the treaty had been signed by the Dey, and the 
American prisoners were delivered up, although the 
messenger, accompanied by the Swedish consul as 
mediator, had to row five miles to the shore and back 
in that time. No presents were given, and tribute 
and presents of any kind were henceforth abolished. 
It was agreed, also, that prisoners of war should not 
be made slaves. This was on June 30, 1815, just 
forty-one days after the squadron had left American 
waters. 

On the same day Mr. Shaler landed as consul-gen¬ 
eral, and was received with due honor. All the 
American property which had been illegally seized in 
Algiers was restored, and $10,000 were paid as an 
equivalent for the captured brig Edwin and her cargo. 
Without inserting any stipulation to that effect in 
the treaty, Decatur agreed, as a mark of good-will, to 
restore the two Algerine vessels which had been cap¬ 
tured. 

“ You told us,” the Dey’s minister sorrowfully said to the 
British consul, “ that the Americans would be swept from the 
seas in six months by your navy, and now they make war upon 
us with some of your own vessels, which they have taken.” 

Both Tunis and Tripoli had shown a hostile dispo¬ 
sition, and both in conformity with their treaties 
with England, but contrary to those made with us, 
had, during the war, allowed English ships to take 
possession of American prizes anchored in their har- 


224 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY . 


bors. Decatur therefore proceeded to Tunis and de¬ 
manded an indemnity of $46,000 for two prizes taken 
by the privateer Abellino and seized in the port of 
Tunis by a British ship of war. “ I know this ad¬ 
miral,” said the Dey to our consul, Mr. Noah; “ he is 
the same one who, in the war with Sidi Yusuf, of 
Tripoli, burnt the frigate.” The Dey looked at the 
fleet, laid down his telescope, sank back in his cush¬ 
ions, combed his beard with a small tortoise-shell 
comb set with diamonds, reflected a minute, and or¬ 
dered the money to be paid immediately. 

At Tripoli it was much the same. The Bashaw at 
first threatened war, but when he learned what had 
happened at Algiers and Tunis, he paid $25,000, as 
indemnity for two prizes carried away by the Eng¬ 
lish, and released ten Christian captives, two of them 
being Danish youths, and the remainder the family 
of a Sicilian gentleman. 

Decatur, in reporting to the Secretary of the Navy, 
(August 31, 1815), says: 

“ Any attempt to conciliate them, except through their 
fears, I should expect to be vain. It is only by the display of 
naval power that this depredation can be restrained. I trust 
the successful result of our small expedition, so honorable to 
our country, will induce other nations to follow the example ; 
in which case the Barbary States will be compelled to abandon 
their piratical system.” 

The speedy success of our expedition caused much 
talk, and early in 1816 the British government sent 


THE TIE A TIC A L BA RBA RY TO ITERS. 


225 


out Lord Exmouth to the Barbary States with in¬ 
structions to procure a peace for Naples and Sardinia 
on the same terms as those made with Spain and 
Portugal (for it was desired to strengthen these states 
as a barrier against France); to notify them that the 
Ionian Islands had been put under British protection, 
and that their commerce must be therefore respected, 
and especially with reference to our treaty just con¬ 
cluded with Algiers. Its eighteenth article, with re¬ 
gard to prizes in war, was held to be incompatible 
with the ninth and tenth articles of the treaty of 1698 
between Great Britain and Algiers. While “ it might 
not for this reason be necessary to require the abroga¬ 
tion of the treaty between the LTnited States and 
Algiers,” Lord Exmouth was “ instructed formally to 
protest against the application of that article of the 
treaty to Great Britain in the case of any future 
hostilities between that country and the LTnited 
States.” * 

The question of putting down the Barbary powers 
had been brought before the Congress of Vienna by 
Admiral Sir Sidney Smith, who advocated a league 
of European powers for the purpose of extirpating 
these pirates, and suggested as the best method that 
a permanent blockade be established along their coast. 
English policy seems to have prevented the Congress 

* John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, iii., 356. 

*5 


226 


A ME RICA JV DIPL OMA C Y. 


from taking any action on this subject, and there was 
a division of opinion as to what course should be 
pursued ; whether, so long as English commerce was 
made safe, these piratical states should be preserved 
in order to prey upcui the commerce of other nations; 
and what the interests of England demanded. The 
Edinburgh Review said : * 

“ Indeed the common belief in the Mediterranean is that 
we rather encourage the piracy of these freebooters for the 
purpose of opposing the commerce of other nations, a most 
false charge undoubtedly in this extent ; but so far founded in 
truth that we might by a word have put them down long ago, 
and that we have always, for one reason or another, abstained 
from exerting our lawful means of destroying them.” 

The Quarterly Review , which at that time, accord¬ 
ing to Mr. Adams, “ was a mere ministerial pamphlet,” 
in April, 1816, gave the Tory view of the question, and 
attempted to prove that because England had abol¬ 
ished negro slavery there was no reason that it should 
touch white slavery, which was not so bad. The 
slaves were well enough treated, and could always be 
ransomed by their friends and relations ; and besides 
that, they were mostly Sardinians, Neapolitans, and 
Sicilians, whom apparently the writer thought beneath 
notice. The article maintained that England could 
not consistently with sound policy and good faith 
join in a league for putting down the Barbary pow- 


* Vol. xxvi., 449. 


THE PIRATICAL BARB ARY POWERS. 


227 


ers. “ As far as natural interests are concerned,” it 
said, “ it would be an act of madness ; ” that the cause 
of humanity would in no way be benefited—and, in¬ 
deed, why should England be pirate-taker general ? 
Or if she was to start in that course, she had better 
begin by putting down the pirates in the China seas, 
where her trade suffered, whereas she was abundantly 
able to secure the safety of her commerce in the 
Mediterranean. 

Lord Sheffield had said . in 1783, in his “ Observa¬ 
tions on the Commerce of the American States : ” 

“It is not probable that the American States will have a 
very free trade in the Mediterranean. It will not be for the 
interest of any of the great maritime powers to protect them 
from the Barbary States. If they know their own interests, 
they will not encourage the Americans to be carriers. That 
the Barbary States were advantageous to the maritime powers 
is certain. If they were suppressed, the little states of Italy 
would have much more of the carrying trade. . . . The 

armed neutrality would be as hurtful to the great maritime 
powers as the Barbary States are useful. The Americans can¬ 
not protect themselves from the latter ; they cannot pretend 
to a navy.” 

And Smollett had said : 

“All the powers that border on the Mediterranean, except 
France and Tuscany, are at perpetual war with the Moors of 
Barbary, and for that reason obliged to employ foreign ships 
for the transportation of their merchandise. This employ¬ 
ment naturally devolves to those nations whose vessels are in 
no danger from the depredations of the Barbarians, namely, 


228 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C 3 


# 

the subjects of the maritime powers, who, for this puny ad¬ 
vantage, not only tolerate the piratical states of Barbary, but 
even supply them with arms and ammunition, solicit their 
passes, and purchase their forbearance with annual presents, 
which are, in effect, equivalent to a tribute.” * 

In 1816 Chateaubriand proposed in the French 
House of Peers that the different courts of Europe 
should all unite in the endeavor to prevail upon the 
Barbary powers to abolish their practice of making 
slaves of Christians. Lord Castlereagh said of it to 
Mr. J. Q. Adams, “ with a sneering smile, that he 
thought it was only a project of Sir Sidney Smith’s 
which would not meet with much encouragement.” t 

The treaties made by Lord Exmouth provided that 
the Neapolitan government should pay to Algiers 
$24,000 yearly, with the usual biennial consular pres¬ 
ents, and all the captives, one thousand in number, 
were ransomed at $1,000 per head. The arrangement 
with Sardinia was similar, but the forty captives were 
rated at only $500 each. The rulers of Tunis and 
Tripoli agreed entirely to abolish Christian slavery, 
and encouraged by this success Lord Exmouth re¬ 
turned to Algiers in order to procure the same con¬ 
cession from the Dey. But he was met by a point- 
blank refusal, and then by requests for delay, which 
was granted after the British consul had been arrested 

* Smollett, History of Great Britain, George II., ch. vii. 

1 Memoirs, iii., 365. 


THE PIRATICAL BARB ARY POWERS. 


229 


and several naval officers insulted. Lord Exmouth 
sailed for home on May 21st. His action brought on 
a debate in the House of Commons, when Lord 
Brougham 

“ Reproved the terms on which the treaty had been made, and 
thought that if the country had sanctioned them with its au¬ 
thority, a great stain would be fixed on her character and con¬ 
sequences injurious to her reputation and honor could not fail 
to arrive.” * 

No sooner was Lord Exmouth’s back turned than 
the Dey, to show his anger, ordered the arrest of all 
Italians under British protection at Oran and Bona. 
The latter were chiefly Neapolitans, engaged in the 
coral fishery, and while they were hearing mass on 
shore, on the morning of May 31st, one hundred were 
killed, one hundred wounded, and about eight hun¬ 
dred taken prisoners. The British vice-consul was ar¬ 
rested, but his life was saved through the friendship 
of the governor. The English acted at once, and 
Dord Exmouth was sent back in command of a 
squadron, assisted by five Dutch ships under the 
command of Admiral van der Capellen. The Dey re¬ 
fused the terms proposed to him. The British fleet 
then bombarded and burned Algiers, upon which the 
Dey came to his senses, and on the next day signed 
the treaty. By this all Christian slaves were given 
up—sixteen hundred and forty-two in number—and 

* Hansard’s Debates, June 18, 1816. 


230 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


with those from Tunis and Tripoli, three thousand 
and three in all; $400,000 were paid back to Naples 
and Sardinia for the ransom money received that year, 
and an agreement was made to treat prisoners of war 
according to the usage of European nations.* 

The punishment was sufficient for the time; but 
the next Dey, Ali Khoja, kidnapped the daughters of 
European residents for his harem, sent plague ships 
about the Mediterranean to spread the pest, and be¬ 
haved in such a way that the Congress of Aix-la- 
Chapelle in 1818 resolved to repress his practices, 
and commissioned England and France to act for 
Europe. A combined English and French squadron 
arrived off Algiers in September 1819, but the new 
Dey refused to submit, and after a blockade the fleet 
retired. It was not until the insult offered to the 
French consul in 1827 that decisive action was taken, 
terminating in the French conquest in 1829, when the 
Dey was allowed to retire to Italy. 

To return to our own affairs. The day after Lord 
Exmouth made his first treaties with Algiers, the 
Dey, under pretext of the difficulties with his two 
ships, which had been delivered by Decatur at Carta¬ 
gena, and had been detained by the Spanish authori- 

* For the history of these events, during which the Amer¬ 
ican consul-general, William Shaler, appears to have acted 
very well, see The Scourge of Christendom, by Lieutenant- 
Colonel R. L. Playfair. 


THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 


231 


ties, declared his treaty of 1815 with us to be no 
longer binding. He sent away our consul, and wrote 
a letter concerning his action to 

“ His Majesty the Emperor of America, its adjacent and de¬ 
pendent provinces, coasts, and wherever his government may 
extend ; our noble friend, the support of the kings of the na¬ 
tion of Jesus, the pillar of all Christian sovereigns, the most 
glorious amongst the princes, elected amongst many lords and 
nobles ; the happy, the great, the amiable James Madison, 
Emperor of America—may his reign be happy and glorious, 
and his life long and prosperous.” 

President Madison, in his reply of August, 1816, 
said : 

“ The United States, whilst they wish for war with no nation, 
will buy peace of none. It is a principle incorporated into the 
settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war 
is better than tribute.” 

After the bombardment of Algiers by the British, 
and the opportune arrival of another American squad¬ 
ron under Commodore Chauncey, no further difficulty 
was made about carrying out the treaty, and it was 
renewed in December, 1816. By some accident this 
treaty was overlooked in the State Department, and 
it was not ratified until France, Sardinia, and Holland 
made similar treaties with Algiers; but Naples, 
Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal continued for some 
years to pay a tribute of $24,000 annually. 

In spite of the many hesitations of our policy it 


232 


A MERIC A A r DIPL OMA C Y. 


will be seen that the United States was first to obtain 
from the Barbary powers the abolition of presents and 
the proper treatment of its prisoners of war. Inciden¬ 
tally these difficulties with Barbary gave us a navy. 
But the cost of the diplomatic negotiations must have 
equalled that of the naval operations. The expendi¬ 
tures for intercourse with the Barbary powers paid 
out by the State Department, apart from salaries, 
amounted in 1821 to $2,650,709.* Even after the 
tribute had ceased, the regular annual appropriations 
under this head, down to 1841, were $42,000, then 
$30,000, and finally $17,400; but for some part of 
this time this was only another name for the secret 
service fund. 

* Senate Ex. Doc., No. 38, 44th Congress, 2d Session, pp. 44, 
54 , 55 * 


V. 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH AND THE 

SLAVE-TRADE. 

Negro Slavery.—Prohibition of the Slave-trade.—English 
Feeling and English Interests.—The Right of Search.— 
English Treaties.—The Police of the Seas.—Treaty of 
Ghent.—Lord Castlereagh’s Propositions.—Mr. Adams’ 
Reply.—The Slave-trade Piracy.—Rush’s Treaty.—Can¬ 
ning’s Objections to the Amendments.—Mr. Adams’ Ex¬ 
planation.—Attempt to Execute Treaties by a British 
Statute.—The British Claim to Search American Vessels. 
—Lord Aberdeen.—Tyler’s Message.—The Quintuple 
Treaty.—General Cass.—Lord Brougham.—The Ashbur¬ 
ton Treaty.— Cass and Webster.—Opinions of Publicists. 
—Brazil.—Renewed Vigor.—General Cass and Lord Na¬ 
pier.—British Outrages in 1858.—Debate in Parliament.— 
The English Claim Withdrawn.—Mr. Seward’s Treaty of 
1862.—Additional Treaty of 1870. 

It would be unfair to charge England exclusively 
with the introduction of slavery into America. 
Negro slaves were imported into the Dutch colony of 
New Amsterdam even before it had been occupied 
by the English. Nevertheless, this traffic was fos¬ 
tered by England; and even where the colonies had 
passed acts tending to diminish the slave-trade, the as- 


234 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


sent to them had been refused by the King.* Further 
back, in the time of Charles II., owing to domestic 
troubles, the emigration from England had taken 
such proportions that the introduction of slaves into 
the colonies was looked upon as a means of prevent¬ 
ing it ; and the King by a proclamation called upon 
his subjects to subscribe in order to form a new com¬ 
pany for the continuation of the trade. At the peace 
of Utrecht, in 1713, the English considered themselves 
repaid for many of the sacrifices to which they had 
submitted during the war of the Spanish Succession, 
by obtaining an article known as the Pacto del Assicnto 
de Negros , by which Great Britain and the South Sea 
Company obtained the exclusive right to introduce 
slaves into the Spanish provinces of America, to the 
number of 4,800 yearly, for thirty successive years. 

In spite of the fact that negro slavery existed in 
nearly all the colonies, the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence had no sooner been signed than measures were 
taken to prohibit the slave-trade; and at the forma¬ 
tion of the Constitution, in 1787, an article was in¬ 
serted prohibiting entirely the importation of slaves 

* The chief authorities for this chapter are Enquiry into 
the Validity of the British Claim to a Right of Visitation and 
Search of American Vessels suspected to be engaged in the 
African Slave-trade, by Henry Wheaton, originally published 
in 1841 ; Wheaton’s History of International Law; and Visita¬ 
tion and Search by William Beach Lawrence, 1858. All quo¬ 
tations from speeches and documents have been verified. 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


235 


after January 1, 1808. In 1794 a law was passed for¬ 
bidding the slave-trade to Americans under severe 
penalties. 

Owing to the efforts of the partisans of abolition in 
England, the question of suppressing the slave-trade, 
and even of slavery itself, had been before the public 
for many years; but it was not until 1807 that Parlia¬ 
ment succeeded in passing a law abolishing the slave- 
trade, and even then there seemed to be great danger 
that it would be vetoed by the King, who opposed 
any sort of innovation. Denmark indeed had, by a 
law passed in 1792, abolished the slave-trade and the 
importation of slaves into its colonies, beginning with 
the year 1804. With this exception, and even this 
was only for the date at which the law was to take 
effect, the United States were the first to prohibit 
the kidnapping and trading in human beings. 

Wrong as we all believe the slave-trade to be, we 
are now in a position, since slavery has been,, through 
military force, entirely abolished in the United States, 
to consider the subject more calmly and without pre¬ 
judice. 

All nations are subject to sudden gusts of philan¬ 
thropy, and none more so than the English. But 
while we may admit that it was entirely owing to the 
efforts of philanthropic men that the slave-trade and 
slavery were abolished by England, it is difficult to 
believe that the active and long-continued policy, for 


236 


A ME RICA A r DIPL GAIA C V. 


nearly fifty years, of putting down the slave-trade by 
all means within its power was entirely owing to 
philanthropic motives. It was soon found that, as 
slaves could no longer be introduced into the British 
colonies, while the traffic that formerly went to them 
was diverted to the neighboring colonies, the British 
colonies suffered through want of hands, and foreign 
trade flourished. The cost of the production of sugar, 
for instance, which had much influence on the ques¬ 
tion, was greater in the British West Indies than in 
the Spanish colonies. British interests, quite apart 
from any question of philanthropy, demanded, as far 
as possible, the entire suppression of the slave-trade. 
Although the real reason *was fairly well concealed 
under the mask of philanthropy, it occasionally shows 
itself very plainly. For instance, in a debate in the 
House of Commons, on June 15, 1810, on a motion of 
Mr. Brougham with regard to the suppression of the 
African slave-trade, Mr. Marryatt, who was an emi¬ 
nent West Indian merchant and at the same time 
colonial agent for Trinidad, said : 

“ We ought to adopt not a nominal but an effectual abolition 
of this abominable traffic. He alluded more particularly to 
the Spanish slave-traders, who carried on a traffic enormous in 
its extent, and in its effects ruinous to the British colonies. 
In truth, as some had formerly predicted, the slave-trade was 
not destroyed ; it had only changed hands. Trinidad no 
longer obtained the negroes so necessary for its cultivation. 
But the same number of negroes were exported from Africa, 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


23 7 


only they went to the Spanish colonies instead of our own. 
He appealed to the British Parliament on the part of our own 
planters, and trusted that effectual steps would yet be taken 
for remedying so serious an evil.” 

Not only was it proposed to abolish the slave-trade 
to other countries, but even when this was found dif¬ 
ficult, to prohibit the importation of products raised 
by slave labor, especially of sugar. As to cotton, 
there was not yet a question. But sugar was raised 
in British colonies, and it cost more than sugar raised 
by slave labor. A writer in the Quarterly Review * 
lays stress on the fact that the Brazilians and Span¬ 
iards, not the Africans, reaped the benefit of British 
emancipation until slavery should be abolished in 
their countries. He speaks of the depopulation of 
more than one-half of the British West Indian settle¬ 
ments, the destruction of more than one-half of Brit¬ 
ish West Indian commerce, the displacement of the 
sugar cultivation of the colonies by other nations, and 
the transfer of the Cuban trade from Great Britain to 
the United States. And then, after arguing in be¬ 
half of the British sugar planters, in an outburst of 
philanthropic zeal, says : 

“If on any pretext whatever, political or commercial, 
whether to help her revenue or cheapen her purchases, Great 
Britain admits into her own market a single ton of sugar raised 
by a slave-importing colony, she is a direct receiver in the 
felony, with more than a felon’s guilt.” 


* Vol. lv., p. 250. 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


238 

The English cabinet saw that it would be necessary 
in the general pacification to restore the French and 
other colonies that had been taken possession of dur¬ 
ing the war, and therefore pressed the more earnestly 
at the Congress of Vienna for general measures for 
the abolition of the slave-trade, on account of the in¬ 
cidental protection thereby accorded to British trade. 
The Congress did in general terms stigmatize the 
slave-trade, but left the .measures for its abolition to 
the care of each individual nation. 

During the war the English had been able to sup¬ 
press in great measure this traffic by the belligerent 
right of search. Knowing that this right could not 
exist in time of peace, England endeavored to make 
treaties with various countries in order to permit it, 
for the purpose of suppressing the slave-trade. Be¬ 
fore the year 1820 such treaties were made with Den¬ 
mark, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands; al¬ 
though for the treaty with Portugal England agreed 
to pay the sum of £300,000, under the pretext of in¬ 
demnities for slave-ships captured in war; and to 
Spain the sum of £400,000 was given outright. It is 
hardly to be supposed that, with the burdens then 
weighing on the English exchequer, these large sums 
would have been given unless an equivalent of some 
kind was expected. More than that, England only 
gained the cessation of the slave-trade by Spain and 
Portugal in regions north of the equator. The reason 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


239 


was very simple. It was to prevent the domains of 
other powers obtaining cheap labor, and thus com¬ 
peting with the British West India Islands. 

So far one of the main reasons for the continued 
action of England against the slave-trade was the 
protection of British commerce. But British states¬ 
men soon began to see that, through the right of 
visitation and search which had been accorded by the 
treaties with the several powers, it might be easy, 
under pretext of putting down the slave-trade, to 
obtain the police of the sea, which once having been 
granted and made the rule of international law, it 
would be difficult to take away from them; and this 
would secure the preponderance of the British navy. 

The treaty of Ghent, which put an end to our 
maritime war with England, simply restored the state 
of things before the war, without deciding any of the 
questions of maritime rights that were involved. 
The English negotiators, however, considered this a 
good occasion on which to procure our assent to their 
principles for the suppression of the slave-trade. An 
article (the tenth) was therefore introduced to the 
effect that 

“ Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the prin¬ 
ciples of humanity and justice ; and whereas his Majesty and 
the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to 
promote its entire abolition ; it is hereby agreed that both 
the contracting powers shall use their best endeavors to ac¬ 
complish so desirable an object.” 


240 


A MERIC A X DIPL DMA C J \ 


This was the beginning of a negotiation that lasted 
fully fifty years, which, though nominally for the abo¬ 
lition of the slave-trade, turned almost entirely on 
the right of searching vessels during time of peace. 
Without following every detail of these negotiations, 
there are certain points that are of more than usual 
interest, and on these I shall touch. 

Reference has been made to the treaty with Spain 
of 1817, by which, in consideration of the payment of 
^400,000, England obtained the abolition of the 
slave-trade south of the equator, its eventual total 
abolition, and a right of search, for the nominal pur¬ 
pose of putting it down. In a subsequent debate in 
Parliament, February 8, 1818, great satisfaction was 
expressed, and the right of search granted was con¬ 
sidered a precedent of the greatest value. In order 
to make use as soon as possible of this precedent, 
Lord Castlereagh called a meeting of the foreign rep¬ 
resentatives then in London, and read to them a 
memoir, showing that since the general pacification 
of Europe, the slave-trade had increased. As the 
belligerent right of search had ceased since the war, it 
was necessary for the powers to make mutual conces¬ 
sions on this subject ; for if even a single one refused 
to submit to the exercise of this right, the slave-trade 
might be carried on under the flag of that country. 
It was suggested, therefore, that the ministers of all 
the powers should make an arrangement by which 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


241 


the vessels of war of their respective countries should 
have the right of visit for this purpose. As the 
ministers had no instructions they could only refer 
the affair to their governments. On subsequent ne¬ 
gotiations the French government declined to enter 
into any such arrangement. 

Lord Castlereagh also communicated to Mr. Rush, 
our minister at London, the text of the treaties con¬ 
cluded between England and Spain, and other Euro¬ 
pean powers, and invited the United States to enter 
into a similar arrangement. Independently of this, 
Mr. Burrow, of Rhode Island, had introduced into 
the Senate the subject of concert with foreign nations 
to put down the slave-trade ; and at the same session 
a more stringent act was passed by Congress against 
the traffic. Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary 
of State, in replying to Lord Castlereagh, mentioned 
the law which had just been passed, but said that 
“ the admission of a right for the officers of foreign 
ships of war to enter and search the vessels of the 
United States in time of peace, under any circum¬ 
stances whatever, would meet with universal repug¬ 
nance in the public opinion of the country.” The 
two nations had mercantile navies of about the same 
tonnage, but the war navy of England was ten times 
greater than that of the United States. Our com¬ 
merce would have been subjected to far more inter¬ 
ruption than the commerce of England could possi- 
16 


242 


A MER 1 C A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


bly have been. It was not so much the search for 
vessels fitted as slavers that we objected to, but a fear 
that other encroachments might be made under this 
pretext. For this fear there were the strongest rea¬ 
sons. One of the causes of the war of 1812, besides 
the violation of what were claimed as neutral rights, 
was the impressment of British seamen from Amer¬ 
ican ships; and in the declaration of the Prince Re¬ 
gent he spoke of the right of impressing British sea¬ 
men as one which came into operation while exercis¬ 
ing the undoubted and undisputed right of searching 
neutral vessels for other purposes. 

11 If a similarity of language and manners may make the ex¬ 
ercise of this right more liable to partial mistakes and occa¬ 
sional abuse when practised toward vessels of the United 
States, the same circumstances make it also a right with the 
exercise of which, in regard to such vessels, it is more difficult 
to dispense.” 

We had seen, too, the consequences of such 
searches. Two American vessels—the Amedee in 
1807, and the Fortuna in 1811—had been condemned 
by the English Admiralty courts, not because they 
had infringed any law of nations or any rule of war, 
but because they were engaged in carrying on the 
slave-trade, which was forbidden by municipal law in 
Great Britain, and had not proved that they were en¬ 
gaged in a traffic which was lawful in the United 
States. Another vessel, the Diana, was restored to 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


243 


its Swedish owners because Sweden had never for¬ 
bidden the slave-trade. Much as we in this country 
abhorred the slave-trade, we were unwilling to have 
our laws carried out by English cruisers and English 
courts. It is true that a subsequent decision of a 
contrary nature was rendered in the case of the Louis 
in 1817. Without referring to the previous decision, 
Lord Stowell decided that no British act of Parlia¬ 
ment, if inconsistent with the law of nations, can ef¬ 
fect the rights of foreigners; that the right of visita¬ 
tion and search on the high seas did not exist in 
time of peace; and that trading in slaves was not 
piracy nor a crime by the universal law of nations. 

This principle, however, the British government 
attempted to introduce into international law by 
means of treaties. While negotiations were still go¬ 
ing on in the United States, the meeting of sovereigns 
took place at Aix-la-Chapelle in November, 1818, 
and Mr. Clarkson, the advocate of abolition, was in¬ 
vited to accompany Lord Castlereagh and present a 
memoir on the subject. Lord Castlereagh, in support¬ 
ing this memorial, proposed a general concession of 
the reciprocal right of search and the capture of ves¬ 
sels belonging to powers that had forbidden the slave- 
trade, but still continued it; and second, a solemn 
proscription of the slave-trade as piracy under inter¬ 
national law. The great powers replied separately. 
France rejected the proposition and suggested a com- 


244 


A MERIC A N DITL OMA C V. 


mon police of the sea. Russia, Prussia, and Austria 
refused to denounce the slave-trade as piracy so long 
as Portugal or any other civilized state continued to 
allow it. They also rejected absolutely the right of 
search. 

At the Congress of Verona, in 1822, another effort 
was made to incorporate this important principle in 
the law of nations ; but all that Mr. Canning could 
obtain was a repetition of the general declarations 
made at Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle. 

Meanwhile the Congress of the United States had 
in 1819 passed another law, declaring that the im¬ 
portation of slaves should be punished by death ; and 
by a law of May 15, 1820, declared the slave-trade to 
be piracy. It is evident that the word piracy here is 
to be taken in a different sense from the ordinary one. 
So far as the United States were concerned, it was 
municipal and not international piracy, and the term 
was used for the convenience of trial and punishment; 
i.e., the slave-trade was assimilated piracy. But at 
the same time it is evident that Congress expected 
that the slave-trade would be declared piracy under 
international law by the common agreement of all 
nations, and that in this way any questions as to the 
right of search might be avoided ; for pirates, being 
enemies of the human race, can be attacked anywhere 
and everywhere; and the search of vessels under sus¬ 
picion of piracy would, if they were innocent, be fol- 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


245 


lowed by proper apology and compensation. Public 
opinion was so strongly exercised on the subject of 
the slave-trade that resolutions on the subject passed 
the House of Representatives in 1821, 1822, and 1823, 
by which the President was requested to enter into 
arrangements with other powers for the abolition of 
the slave-trade; and in 1823, when the vote was 
nearly unanimous, a clause was added, proposing its 
denunciation as piracy under the law of nations. We 
were even willing to overlook our objections to the 
right of search ; though a clause proposing a direct 
assent to it was rejected. 

Already in the English Parliament of July 9, 1819, 
an address had been presented to the Prince Regent 
congratulating him on his efforts to suppress the 
slave-trade, speaking in very complimentary terms 
about the United States, and urging a continuation 
of negotiations, especially with France and America. 
Efforts to obtain the right of search from the United 
States were therefore renewed, and on December 20, 
1820, Sir Stratford Canning, the British minister, 
presented a note to Mr. Adams on the subject. Ne¬ 
gotiations continued between Mr. Adams and the 
British minister, without result, until the resolution 
of 1823, just mentioned, when the conduct of negotia¬ 
tions was transferred to Mr. Rush at London ; and he 
finally, on March 13, 1824, signed a treaty with Eng¬ 
land denouncing the slave-trade as piracy by the 


246 


A ME RICA A T DIPL OMA C Y. 


laws of the two countries, and agreeing to exercise 
their influence with other maritime nations to have it 
denounced as piracy according to international law, 
but stipulating also for the reciprocal exercise of the 
right of search, under certain restrictions, by vessels 
duly authorized by the instruction of their respective 
governments to cruise on the coasts of Africa, America, 
and the West Indies, for the suppression of the slave- 
trade. Vessels captured were to be tried by the courts 
of the country to which they belonged, and not by 
those of the captor, as had been proposed by Eng¬ 
land. 

When this treaty was submitted to the Senate for 
approval various amendments were made. The 
Senate refused to submit to the search of American 
vessels on the coast of America, as also to try as 
pirates Americans found on the vessels of any third 
power ; and another article was also proposed allow¬ 
ing the treaty to be denounced after six months’ no¬ 
tice. These amendments the English government 
refused to accept. Mr. Canning was especially in¬ 
dignant with the omission of the word America , say¬ 
ing that he should have never signed the treaty unless 
the right of search had been granted for the coasts of 
America as well as for those of Africa and the West 
Indies. Mr. Canning also took ground which a little 
reflection would have shown him to be wrong, that 
any amendment by the Senate was objectionable. 


THE RIGHT OF STARCH. 


247 


The treaty, therefore, was not finally ratified, and all 
negotiations were suspended for some time. 

Mr. Adams said afterward in Congress, about this 
very subject : * 

“ I returned home and held the situation of Secretary of 
State under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and was the 
medium through which the proposal of the British govern¬ 
ment was afterward made. I resisted and opposed it in the 
cabinet with all my power, and though not a slave-holder my¬ 
self, I had to resist the slave-holding members of the cabinet, 
as well as Mr. Monroe himself, for they were all inclined to 
concede the right. I maintained my ground as long as I could, 
for there was at that time a strong inclination in Congress also 
to assent to the proposal. Not a session passed but there was 
a proposition to request the President to negotiate for the con¬ 
cession of this right of search. . . . Mercer continued to 

press it until, finally, in 1822, he brought the House by yeas and 
nays to vote their assent to it; and, strange to say, there were 
but nine votes against it. The same thing took place in the 
other House ; the joint resolution went to the President, and 
he, accordingly, entered into the negotiation. It was utterly 
against my judgment and wishes ; but I was obliged to submit, 
and I prepared the requisite despatches to Mr. Rush, when 
he made his proposal to Mr. Canning. Mr. Canning’s reply 
was, ‘ Draw up your convention, and I will sign it.’ Mr. Rush 
did so ; and Mr. Canning, without the slightest alteration 
whatever, without varying the dot of an i, or the crossing of a 
t, did affix to it his signature ; thus assenting to our own terms 
in our own language. 

“ But as to the right of search, in the bitterness of my soul 

* Mr. John Quincy Adams, April 14, 1842, Congressional Globe, 27th 
Congress, 2d Session, p. 424. 


248 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


I say it was conceded by all the authorities of this nation. I 
say this because I am not now for conceding it.” 

In 1831-33 Great Britain obtained from France a 
concession of the right of search under certain limita¬ 
tions, and gained also the adhesion to these treaties of 
Denmark and Sardinia in 1834; of the Manse towns 
and Tuscany in 1837 ; of Naples in 1838 ; and of Hayti 
in 1839. In this last year (1839) the English govern¬ 
ment complained that the Portuguese had never execut¬ 
ed the stipulations of their treaty, and still continued 
the slave-trade. Apparently despairing of obtaining 
the principles for which they contended by general as¬ 
sent, and feeling strong by the co-operation they had 
thus far obtained, they undertook to enforce them by 
an act of Parliament, and a law was passed to execute 
the provisions of the treaty with Portugal by means 
of English vessels. By this law any Portuguese vessels 
engaged in the slave-trade, or any vessel that could 
not establish to the satisfaction of the court that she 
was justly entitled to claim the protection of the flag 
of any state or nation, could be condemned by a 
British admiralty court. The Duke of Wellington, 
who had opposed all such proceedings, and had main¬ 
tained that if Portugal had violated any treaty, re¬ 
dress was to be obtained by negotiations, asked, 

“ Was it intended that the vessels of any power in Europe 
might be searched and afterward allowed to proceed on their 
voyage, whether we had treaties with those powers or not ? ” 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH 


249 


Lord Melbourne replied that 

‘ 1 The bill did not bind her Majesty to adopt those measures ; 
that it was for her Majesty to apportion her measures to meet 
the necessities of the case.” 

Even on the third reading of the bill the Duke of 
Wellington protested against its passage, and made 
special reference to the United States, as nothing 
went to show the least disposition on the part of 
America to permit the right of detention and search 
for papers. He said that the measure still exhibited 
its criminal character ; it was a breach of the law of na¬ 
tions and a violation of international treaties. Shortly 
after the bill had passed Parliament, the Republic of 
Hayti attempted to put into effect a similar law for 
capturing slave-traders off the Haytian coast, and 
bringing them into its ports for adjudication. Lord 
Palmerston declared this entirely unauthorized and 
impossible to allow, as no state had the right, without 
special treaties, to visit, search, or detain vessels be¬ 
longing to any other power, even though they were 
actually engaged in the slave-trade. Yet, at almost 
the same time, this claim was brought forward by 
Lord Palmerston against the United States, and in a 
note dated August 27, 1841, to Mr. Stevenson, our 
minister, he explicitly claimed a right, which he 
avowed the intention of his government to continue 
to exercise, that British cruisers could examine our 
vessels with a view of ascertaining by inspection of 


250 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


papers their nationality ; and claimed that the United 
States flag could only exempt a vessel from search 
when that vessel was provided with papers entitling 
her to wear that flag, and proving her to be United 
States’ property, and navigated according to law. 
Mr. Stevenson showed that the English claims were 
incompatible with the law of nations, as expounded in 
their own country. Lord Aberdeen, who had suc¬ 
ceeded Lord Palmerston, in his reply of October, 
1841, intimated that Lord Stowell’s decisions were no 
longer of authority ; and that the change of circum¬ 
stances, by the happy concurrence of the states of 
Christendom in a good object, not merely justifies, 
but renders indispensable, the right now claimed and 
exercised by the British government. He observed 
that the vessels were not visited as American vessels, 
but only as being suspected of belonging to some 
nation with which England had treaties, and fraudu¬ 
lently carrying American colors. This view is a dis¬ 
tinction too fine for practice, for, as Mr. Wheaton 
justly observes, 

“ Neither is the neutral vessel visited in time of war, as 
neutral; but she is ever visited, and captured, and detained, 
and carried in for adjudication, as being suspected to be an 
enemy, either literally such, or as having forfeited her neutral 
character by violating her neutral duties.”* 

In his subsequent correspondence with Mr. Everett, 
Lord Aberdeen endeavored to make another point, 

* Enquiry, p. 143. 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


251 


that the right of visit claimed by the English was not 
the same as the right of search practised toward 
neutral vessels in time of war. It was, however, 
plainly shown by international authorities, and even 
by English decisions, that what in French was termed 
droit dc visite had been translated into English either 
“ right of visit,” or “ right of search,” and that there 
could be no distinction between a visit for the pur¬ 
pose of ascertaining the true character of a ship, and 
a visit with a search to ascertain whether it was 
strictly performing its neutral duties. As Mr. Law¬ 
rence says : 

“ If the proposition of the British government was tenable, we 
were in much worse position than if we had actually conceded 
the right of search. In the treaties made with other powers, 
there were limits as to the time when and where the visitation 
for the examination of papers may be made ; and the right 
of detention is confined to certain cruisers specially authorized. 
In our case, if admitted at all, it would be equally competent 
for any ship of war, and if English ships have the right, all 
others possess it, to visit and detain any merchant-man at any 
time and in any part of the ocean.” * 

President Tyler had already met the attempt to 
bind us by the acts of other states in his message of 
December 7, 1841, in which he declared that 

“ The United States cannot consent to interpolations into 
the maritime code at the mere will and pleasure of other gov¬ 
ernments. When we are given to understand, as in this in- 


* Visitation and Search, p. 41. 


252 


A MER 7 CA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


stance, by a foreign government, that its treaties with other 
nations cannot be executed without the establishment and en¬ 
forcement of new principles of maritime police, to be em¬ 
ployed without our consent, we must employ language neither 
of equivocal import nor susceptible of misconstruction. 
Whether this Government should now enter into treaties con¬ 
taining mutual stipulations upon this subject is a question for 
its mature deliberation. Certain it is, that if the right to de¬ 
tain American ships on the high seas can be justified on the 
plea of a necessity for such detention arising out of the exist¬ 
ence of treaties between other nations, the same plea may be 
extended and enlarged by the new stipulations of new treaties 
to which the United States may not be a party.” 

There seemed danger that the English pretensions 
would find strong support on the Continent, for on 
December 20, 1841, the very date of Lord Aberdeen’s 
letter to Mr. Everett, England had persuaded Austria, 
Russia, Prussia, and France to sign a treaty by which 
these four powers agreed to adopt the English laws 
relating to the slave-trade, which was declared piracy, 
and all five mutually conceded to each other a quali¬ 
fied right of search. Such a treaty was of course a 
mere formality, for the Mediterranean was specially 
excluded, and no ships belonging to Austria, Russia, 
or Prussia had ever been engaged in the slave-trade 
or were ever captured by British vessels. Fortu¬ 
nately our minister in Paris at that time was General 
Lewis Cass, a man of great experience, of decided 
views, and who had succeeded in obtaining a very in¬ 
timate and friendly footing with the French govern- 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


253 


ment. He took the responsibility of acting without 
instructions, presented to M. Guizot a copy of the 
President’s message and the correspondence on this 
subject with England, and called the attention of the 
French government to the grave consequences, not 
only to America but to France, which might result 
from a ratification of the treaty. In this action Gen¬ 
eral Cass was supported by some of the most eminent 
statesmen of France. His letter was laid before the 
King and Council; both MM. Guizot and Thiers had 
full conversations with him on the subject, and the 
result was that France refused to ratify the quintuple 
treaty. 

General Cass’ action was warmly approved by our 
Government, but it was as heartily disliked by the 
English government ; and Lord Brougham, who had 
been very prominent in all these disputes, took occa¬ 
sion, in a debate a year afterward, on the subject of 
the Ashburton treaty, to revile General Cass in terms 
which, fortunately, nowadays no English member of 
Parliament would use in speaking of an official of even 
the smallest state.* 

* Said Lord Brougham, on April 7, 1843 : “ There was one 
man who was the very impersonation of mob hostility to Eng¬ 
land—General Cass—whose breach of duty to his own Govern¬ 
ment was so discreditable, and even more flagrant than his 
breach of duty to humanity as a man, and as the free descend¬ 
ant of English parents, and whose conduct in all these particu¬ 
lars it was impossible to pass over or palliate. This person, 


254 


A MERIC A N DIPLOMACY. 


Immediately—for the quintuple treaty had failed of 
its main object in not being ratified by France, through 
General Cass’ interference—Lord Ashburton was sent 
to the United States to negotiate a treaty settling sev¬ 
eral important questions in dispute between the two 
governments. The treaty was made and ratified. 
The question of visitation and search was apparently 
never mentioned during the negotiations. Instead of 
this our Government bound itself to keep a squadron 
carrying not less than eighty guns on the African 
coast, in connection with the British squadron, but 

who had been sent to maintain peace, and to reside at Paris 
for that purpose, after pacific relations had been established 
between France and America, did his best to break it, whether 
by the circulation of statements upon the question of inter¬ 
national law, of which he had no more conception than of the 
languages that were spoken in the moon, or by any other argu¬ 
ments of reason, for which he had no more capacity than he 
had for understanding legal points and differences. 

For that purpose he was not above pandering to the worst 
mob feeling.” 

General Cass replied, in the Senate, only on February io, 
1846 : 

“ Lord Brougham did not always talk thus—not when one of 
his friends applied to me in Paris to remove certain unfavorable 
impressions made in a high quarter by one of those imprudent 
and impulsive remarks, which seem to belong to his moral 
habits. The effort was successful. And now my account of 
good for evil with Lord Brougham is balanced. 

“ It is an irksome task to cull expressions like these and re¬ 
peat them here. I hold them up not as a warning—that is not 
needed—but to repel the intimation that we ought to study the 
courtesies of our position in the British PaiLament.” 


TIIK RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


255 


independently thereof. When General Cass was 
asked to communicate this treaty to the French gov¬ 
ernment, he complied with his instructions, but re¬ 
signed, on the ground that he had not been properly 
supported by his own Government in the question of 
the right of search, and in writing to Mr. Webster he 
took occasion to explain his objections to the treaty 
on the ground that no article had been inserted es¬ 
pecially refusing the right of search. He feared lest 
England might construe this omission into an admis¬ 
sion by the United States of her claims. Mr. Web¬ 
ster replied, and a bitter correspondence ensued. 
What General Cass had said had been substantially 
said in the debates in the Senate on the ratification of 
the treaty, and events soon proved General Cass in 
the right and Mr. Webster in the wrong.* President 
Tyler, in his message of August 11, 1842, communicat¬ 
ing the treaty to the Senate, sustained the provision 
for the African squadron on the ground that this was 
a substitute for visitation and search ; and in his next 
annual message said that the ground assumed in the 
former message had been maintained, and all pretence 
removed from interference with our commerce for any 
purpose whatever by any foreign government. As 

* The correspondence between General Cass and Mr. Web¬ 
ster will be found partly in Webster’s Works, and the re¬ 
mainder in the Life of Cass. The Letters and Times of the 
Tylers also contain some interesting statements and letters on 
this subject. 


256 


A MERIC A A T DIPL OMA C V. 


soon as these statements reached England, the British 
government showed their view on the subject. Sir 
Robert Peel, then Prime Minister, said : 

“ With respect to the treaty lately signed between this coun¬ 
try and the United States, I say, that in acting upon that treaty 
we have not abandoned our claim to the right of visitation, 
nor do we understand that in signing that treaty the United 
States could suppose that the claim was abandoned.” 

The British minister, Mr. Fox, was directed to read 
to the Secretary of State a despatch from Lord Aber¬ 
deen, in which it was stated that from the principles 
which she had constantly asserted, and which are re¬ 
corded in the correspondence of 1841, England had 
not receded and would not recede. The matter was 
submitted to Congress, and subsequently Mr. Web¬ 
ster, in his instructions to Mr. Everett, dated March 
28, 1843, reviewed the whole question with great abil¬ 
ity, and ended by saying : 

“ The Government of the United States does not admit that 
by the law and practice of nations there is any such thing as a 
right of visit distinguished by well-known rules and definitions 
from a right of search.” 

It is to be regretted that the views of the Govern¬ 
ment were not put forward by Mr. Webster in this 
way at the time when they would have been pecu¬ 
liarly forcible, that is, during the negotiations for the 
treaty. 

All the important writers on international law 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


257 


agree with the position taken up by the United 
States. De Cussy says : 

“ The extension of the right of visitation and search in time 
of peace will be the commencement of a system for the do¬ 
minion of the sea, by means of the abuses to which visitation 
and search would give rise, by confounding intentionally all 
the distinctions of times and circumstances, of peace and war, 
and all the rights applicable to the two different situations, the 
one regular and the other forced and temporary.” * 

In discussing particularly our own actions, he says : 

“ The United States manifested under these circumstances, 
in the highest degree, the sentiment of respect which every 
nation ought to feel for the independence of its flag and for its 
own dignity as a sovereign state. The other powers, carried 
away by the philanthropic sentiment which had induced them 
to sign the treaty of 1841, seemed to have forgotten that they 
were favoring the strongest passion of England—her dominion 
of the sea. Was it not to go beyond all her hopes to grant to 
her numerous ships of war a right of visitation and search in 
time of peace, in exchange for the same right received by the 
very inconsiderable navies of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and 
of the other maritime states which had acceded to the treaty 
of 1841 ?”f 

The action of Parliament in 1845 is a striking ex¬ 
ample of how far England was willing to go in this 
direction. The treaty of 1817 made with Portugal, 
by which Brazil, after becoming independent, had 
bound itself in 1826, expired by its own provisions in 
1845 ; and this fact, and the termination of the mixed 

* Droit Maritime, tom. ii., p. 385. f Ibid., p. 364. 

17 


258 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


commission under the treaty, had been duly notified 
to the English government by Brazil. Yet under 
the pretext that the treaty had provided that, three 
years after its ratification, the slave-trade in Brazil 
should be utterly abolished and treated as piracy, 
the British Parliament passed an act in August, 1845, 
giving jurisdiction to British admiralty courts over 
any vessel engaged in the slave-trade with Brazil. 
English cruisers even entered Brazilian harbors and 
rivers and burned, when they could not cut out, Bra¬ 
zilian ships. 

By 1849 England had succeeded in making twenty- 
four treaties for the suppression of the slave-trade, ten 
of which established mixed courts, and all of which, 
except those of France and the United States, per¬ 
mitted a mutual right of search. During the Cri¬ 
mean War the British were unable to exercise the 
same vigilance on the coast of Africa, and the slave- 
trade greatly revived. After this, British cruisers 
were very active, not only on the African coast, 
but even in the Gulf of Mexico, and there were 
numerous complaints that American vessels, some of 
them entirely innocent, had been overhauled and 
searched by the British. Complaints in each case 
were presented to the English government, which ex¬ 
plained that no stricter instructions had been given 
than those which had been for many years in force. 
The reasons for the greater vigor following these in- 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


259 


structions were very simple—the amount of prize- 
money which every capture brought to the takers. 
The ship and its cargo were forfeited, and the pro¬ 
ceeds divided among the officers and crew of the ves¬ 
sel which captured it. Unless in some rare case, 
even the slaves were not restored to their native 
country, but were held to service for sixteen years, on 
government account, in whatever colony the ship 
might be condemned, in order to pay the expenses 
of their rescue. Thus, from their great zeal in put¬ 
ting down piracy, the British cruisers began to com¬ 
mit, themselves, something very near piracy. It be¬ 
came quite common on the coast of Africa, whenever 
a vessel, supposed to be a slaver, showed American 
colors, for a British officer to board her and suggest 
to the captain that in case he were engaged in the 
slave-trade it might be more convenient for him per¬ 
sonally—as the penalty for the slave-trade was death 
by the laws of the United States—to throw his papers 
overboard, and allow his vessel to be taken as with¬ 
out papers, by which it would be tried before a Brit¬ 
ish court, and only the ship and cargo condemned, 
while the officers and crew would go free. 

The French convention of 1845 with England, 
which was signed after a warm parliamentary discus¬ 
sion, to take the place of those of 1831 and 1833, was 
limited in duration to ten years, and the French re¬ 
fused to consent to its continuance beyond that point; 


2 6o A MERIC A A r DIPL OM A C Y. 

so that in 1857, the time at which we have now ar¬ 
rived, this was inoperaive, and France was allowed 
to take her own measures for punishing French slave- 
traders. Although the article of our treaty of 1842, 
providing for an American squadron on the coast of 
Africa, might have been abrogated after five years, it 
was not; and its execution was insisted on in a note 
from Lord Napier to General Cass, then Secretary of 
State, as late as December 24, 1857, and this, too, 
when the British commanders had done all they 
could to render our squadron useless, by persuading 
American captains found delinquent to throw over¬ 
board their American papers and surrender to British 
ships. In Lord Napier’s note was a remark referring 
to the hoisting of the American flag : 

“ This precaution does not prevent the slaver from visit, 
but it exonerates him from search.” 

It was undoubtedly agreeable to General Cass that, 
after the action he had taken when minister to France 
in 1842, he could now be the means of effectually 
preventing all further British claims in this respect. 
In his reply of April 10, 1858, he said : 

“The distinction taken between the right of visitation and 
the right of search, between an entry for the purpose of ex¬ 
amining into the national character of a vessel and an entry 
for examining into the objects of her voyage, cannot be justly 
maintained upon any recognized principles of the law of nations. 
The United States deny the right to the cruisers of any power 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH 261 

whatever to enter their vessels by force in time of peace, 
much less can they permit foreign officers to examine their 
papers and adjudicate upon their nationality, and whether they 
are navigated according to law. No change of name can 
change the legal character of the assumption. Search or visit, 
it is equally an assault upon the independence of nations.” * 

In May, 1858, General Cass was, on two occasions, 
obliged to bring the subject of boarding American 
vessels by British officers to the attention of the 
British government; and in transmitting a list of 
American vessels which had been boarded he called 
particular attention to the search of one in the har¬ 
bor of Sagua la Grande in Cuba. 

On the 24th of May the Committee on Foreign 
Relations in the Senate made a report about the out¬ 
rages recently committed on American vessels, and 
on the 15th of June resolutions were adopted unani¬ 
mously on the subject, protesting against these acts 
and approving of the action of the Executive in 
sending a naval force into the infested seas, with 
orders to protect all vessels of the United States on 
the high seas from search or detention by the vessels 
of war of any other nation. The strongest anti¬ 
slavery men, such as Mr. Seward, Mr. Hale, and Mr. 
Wilson, were as firm and vigorous in their expressions 
as any slave-holder from the South. 

This looked very much like war, and in the debates 

* 35th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Ex. Doc., No. 49, p. 49. 


262 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


in Parliament on June 17th and 18th it appeared 
that the British government, after taking the advice 
of its law officers, had determined to give up all claim 
to any right of visitation, even without the substitu¬ 
tion of any convention in its place. Lord Napier 
was indeed instructed to state to General Cass that 
the British government entirely agreed with his state¬ 
ment of doctrine on the subject. There still being, 
however, some question on the subject in the news¬ 
papers, and even apparently a little quibbling in Par¬ 
liament, Mr. Dallas, the American minister at London, 
in a speech made on July 4th at a banquetof Ameri¬ 
cans, announced to his countrymen that 

“Visit and search, in regard to American vessels on the high 
seas in time of peace, is finally ended.” 

Mr. Dallas, in a letter to General Cass, says : 

“ The slight doubt hinted in some newspapers as to the 
question of the renunciation of the boarding question and the 
reticence of the ministerial grandees when interrogated, 
seemed to make it important that the exact character of what 
has been done should be fixed before Parliament adjourns, 
and before the possible contingency of a change from Derby to 
Palmerston can take place. The post-prandial device worked 
to a charm, and Lords Lyndhurst and Malmesbury have left 
nothing to desire in their public and precise avowals.” * 

In the House of Lords, on July 26th, Lord Lynd¬ 
hurst asked for the correspondence with the United 

*Mr. Dallas to Mr. Cass, July 30, 1858, Dallas’ Letters from 
London, p. 39. 


THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 


263 


States on this question. He spoke of Mr. Dallas’ 
speech, saying that some persons in high positions 
had considered the proceeding not justified, and that 
a most important and valuable right had been sacri¬ 
ficed. 

“ We have surrendered,” he said, “ no right at all, for no 
such right as that contended for has ever existed. We have 
abandoned the assumption of a right, and in doing so we have 
acted justly, prudently, and wisely. I think it is of great im¬ 
portance that this question should be distinctly and finally un¬ 
derstood and settled. By no writer on international law has 
this right ever been asserted. There is no decision of any 
court of justice, having jurisdiction to decide such questions, 
in which that right has ever been admitted.” 

Here it might be supposed that this long-continued 
dispute had ended ; but four years afterward, in 1862 
(April 7), Mr. Seward accepted the proposition of the 
English government for a more stringent treaty on 
the subject of putting down the slave-trade, and ac¬ 
cepted the mutual right of search for that purpose. 
We were then engaged in putting down the rebellion. 
Mr. Seward probably supposed that in accepting this 
proposition he would conciliate England to our side 
of the dispute; at the same time Mr. Seward was no 
doubt influenced by his feelings against slavery. Such 
was certainly the case with Mr. Sumner, whose speech 
in the Senate, when the treaty was presented for ap¬ 
proval, is one of the few authentic records of that 


event. 


264 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


There had, indeed, just before the war, been an 
outbreak of the slave-trade. Up to that time slavers 
had generally been fitted out in English ports, but in 
1859 and i860 the headquarters of the business was 
in New York. There had been an acrimonious de¬ 
bate on the subject in Congress, though a law pro¬ 
posing additional penalties had been defeated, and on 
February 21, 1862, Nathaniel Gordon, the commander 
of the slave-ship Erie, was executed at New York. 
This was the only case in which the punishment of 
death had been applied in this country. 

This treaty provided also for mixed courts, and, 
when the law for carrying the treaty into effect came 
up in the Senate, one or two senators opposed it on 
the ground that the treaty, for this reason, never should 
have been made; but nothing was especially said 
about the right of search. The treaty was a useless 
concession to Great Britain, for it did not purchase 
the benevolent neutrality of that government. Not 
a single case was ever tried in any of the mixed courts, 
for the slave-trade had died out ; and in 1869 Con¬ 
gress asked the President to obtain the consent of 
Great Britain to the abolition of these courts. An 
additional treaty was made in 1870, by which the 
jurisdiction of the mixed courts was transferred to 
the admiralty courts of the contracting parties, British 
vessels to be judged in British courts, and American 
vessels in American courts at New York or Key West. 


VI. 


THE FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS 

AND SEAS. 


A .—THE MISSISSIPPI. 

Mr. Jay’s Negotiations in Spain in 1780.—Our Claim.—Gar- 
doqui in America.—Different Views of the Northern and 
Southern States about the Importance of the Mississippi.— 
Carmichael and Short at Madrid.—Objections to them. 
—Thomas Pinckney sent to Madrid.—Treaty of 1795.— 
Godoy’s Opinion.—Spanish Protest against our Treaty 
with Great Britain.—Incident of 1802.—Final Settlement 
by the Acquisition of Louisiana and the Floridas. 

The efforts of our Government to secure for the 
commerce of its citizens the free navigation of rivers 
and seas have been constant, systematic, and remark¬ 
able, beginning even before we had obtained our in¬ 
dependence. There had been difficulties between the 
Catholic provinces of the Netherlands and Holland 
with regard to the navigation of the Scheldt in the 
latter part of the eighteenth century; but the United 
States were the first to insist, as a matter of interna¬ 
tional law, that the people who live along the upper 



266 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


waters of a river have a natural right to sail to the sea 
through the dominions of other powers. The rights 
claimed by the United States were laid down as part 
of the public law of Europe by the Congress of 
Vienna, but the credit of having first proclaimed them 
belongs to the United States alone. 

As early as December 30, 1776, Congress passed a 
resolution for the purpose of making a treaty with 
Spain, agreeing that if Spain should join them in the 
war against Great Britain they would assist in reduc¬ 
ing to the possession of Spain the town and harbor of 
Pensacola, then held by England, provided the in¬ 
habitants of the United States should have the free 
navigation of the Mississippi and the use of the harbor 
of Pensacola. Mr. Arthur Lee visited Spain at the 
request of Franklin and Deane, but he had no special 
appointment, and appears to have had no other ob¬ 
ject than to obtain money and supplies. The first 
regular minister of the United States to Spain was 
Mr. John Jay, who was appointed in 1779 to negoti¬ 
ate a treaty, and was instructed to guarantee the two 
Floridas on condition that the free navigation of the 
Mississippi should be obtained for this country.* 

* This whole subject has been excellently treated by Mr. 
Theodore Lyman, in his book the Diplomacy of the United 
States, and by Mr. W. H. Trescot in his two volumes the 
Diplomacy of the Revolution and the Diplomatic History of 
the United States during the Administration of Washington 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


267 


The great obstacle to the recognition of Mr. Jay on 

the part of Spain was the navigation of the Missis¬ 
sippi. The Spanish government desired to make the 
Gulf of Mexico a closed sea from Florida to Yucatan, 
into which the ships of other nations could not pene¬ 
trate, the whole commerce being reserved for Span¬ 
iards. The Count Florida Blanca, on September 23, 
1780, said with warmth, 

“ That unless Spain could exclude all nations from the Gulf 
of Mexico, they might as well admit all; that the King would 
never relinquish that object ; that the ministry regarded it as 
the principal thing to be obtained by the war; and that ob¬ 
tained he should be easy whether Spain obtained other ces¬ 
sions or not. The acquisition was much more important than 
that of Gibraltar.” 

Mr. Jay remained in Madrid until May, 1782, but 
he was never received in his official character, for 
Spain had not yet formally acknowledged the inde¬ 
pendence of the United States, nor could he nego¬ 
tiate continuously with regard to the proposed treaty. 
Although he upheld in the strongest manner the 
claims of the United States to the navigation of the 
Mississippi, and even to having a free port accessible 
to merchant ships below the thirty-third degree of 
north latitude, or about that, for, on account of the 

and Jefferson. Mr. John Bach McMaster, in his History of 
the American People has shown the popular feeling called out 
by the negotiation. I can add nothing new. 


268 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C \ 


peculiarities of the Mississippi and the necessity of 
changing goods into sea-going vessels, the simple 
right of navigation would be of no use; yet he seems 
always to have considered it doubtful whether the 
United States would not be compelled to relinquish 
their claim to the Mississippi in order to obtain the 
recognition of their independence. The question 
was complicated by our desire to obtain pecuniary 
assistance from Spain for the purpose of carrying on 
the war, and on September 3, 1780, Jay said to Gar- 
doqui, who had proposed the navigation of the Mis¬ 
sissippi's a consideration for aids, 

“That the Americans, almost to a man, believed that God 
Almighty had made that river a highway for the people of the 
upper country to go to the sea by ; that this country was ex¬ 
tensive and fertile ; that the General, many officers, and 
others of distinction and influence in America were deeply 
interested in it; that it would rapidly settle,” etc.* 

It seems strange that, in a negotiation of this kind, 
Mr. Jay should have allowed himself to refer to the 
private speculations of General Washington in west¬ 
ern lands.f 

After Jay’s departure his secretary, Mr. Carmichael, 
was left as charge d’affaires, and in 1785 the Spanish 

* Mr. Jay to the President of Congress, November 6, 1780. 

f For full information on this subject, see a monograph by 
Prof. Herbert B. Adams, on Maryland’s Influence upon Land 
Cessions to the United States, published in the Johns Hop¬ 
kins University Studies in History and Political Science. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 269 

government for the first time sent to this country, as 
charge d’affaires, the same Don Diego Gardoqui. Mr. 
Jay, who was then Secretary of State, was authorized 
by Congress to treat with the Spanish representative, 
not only on the question of boundaries, but on that 
of the Mississippi. Our claim had, we thought, 
been made perfect by the treaty of 1783, by which 
Great Britain recognized our independence; for by 
that treaty Great Britain had fixed, as our western 
boundary, the Mississippi, from its source down to 
the thirty-first degree of north latitude, and the 
eighth article read, 

“ The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the 
ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of 
Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.” 

Our claims, therefore, rested, first, on the law of 
nature and of nations; second, on the treaty of Paris 
of 1763, by which a right was secured to the subjects 
of Great Britain 

“ To navigate the Mississippi, in its whole breadth and length, 
from its source to the sea, and expressly that part which is be¬ 
tween the island of New Orleans and the right bank of the 
river, as well as the passage both in and out of its mouth ; 
and that the vessel should not be stopped, visited, or sub¬ 
jected to the payment of any duty whatsoever.” 

The cession by France to Spain of the island of 
New Orleans, and of the country west of the Missis¬ 
sippi, was, of course, subject to our right of navigation 


270 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


previously granted to us by France. Third, by the 
treaty with Great Britain of 1782-83, by which, as 
the owners of all the country east of the Mississippi 
and north of the thirty-first degree of latitude, we 
had come into all the rights formerly possessed by 
Great Britain with regard to that part of the river, 
including the right of free navigation to the mouth. 

Spain objected to this transfer of rights on the part 
of England, pleading that the English had ceded 
what they did not own. Our negotiations were at¬ 
tended with very great difficulties owing to the divis¬ 
ion of opinion between the States, a fact of which 
Gardoqui became very easily informed. We were 
negotiating not only for the freedom of the Missis¬ 
sippi, but also for a commercial treaty. The Northern 
States, on account of their commerce, cared most for 
the commercial treaty, and were willing, in case we 
could conclude one with Spain on reciprocal terms, to 
forbear the use of the Mississippi from the southern 
boundary of the United States to the ocean for 
twenty-five or thirty years, thinking that the naviga¬ 
tion of that river was of so little importance at that 
time that it would not become valuable for many 
years, and that it was no sacrifice to forbear the use 
of a thing which we really did not want. To this the 
five Southern States—Maryland, Virginia, the Caro- 
linas, and Georgia were opposed. Many of their 
citizens had gone into the western country, and the 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 2J I 

river system was such that the navigation of the Mis¬ 
sissippi appeared to them of prime importance. But 
at first the Southern States were in a minority, and 
in 1781, when Mr. Jay was still in Spain, he was em¬ 
powered to propose, as the condition of a commercial 
treaty, that we would forbear the use of the Missis¬ 
sippi for thirty years.* The feeling of the country, 
however, soon changed. Immediately after the war 
there was a large emigration from the Atlantic States, 
which were oppressed with taxes and debts, and, as 
Mr. Lyman well says, 

“ While Congress was discussing the points of a treaty a nation 
was created there.” f 

The time was now approaching when the Federal 
Government was about to go into operation, and the 
Congress of the confederation, therefore, in Sep¬ 
tember, 1788, passed a resolution declaring that 

“ The free navigation of the river Mississippi is a clear and 
essential right of the United States, and that the same ought 
to be considered and supported as such ; ” 

but passed over the further negotiations to the new 
Federal Government. Nothing, however, was done 
until the latter part of the year 1791, when there 

* Mr. Jay had already written to Carmichael from Cadiz on 
January 27, 1780 : “ Let it appear also from your representa¬ 
tion that ages will be necessary to settle those extensive re^ 
gions.” 

f Lyman’s Diplomacy of the United States, i., p. 235. 


272 


A MERIC A N DIPLOMACY. 


came an intimation from Spain that she would be 
willing to treat at Madrid, on one of the subjects 
then unsettled, viz., the navigation of the Mississippi. 
This hint was of such importance that Mr. Car¬ 
michael, who had left Madrid shortly before, and Mr. 
Short, at that time charge d’affaires at Paris, were 
appointed commissioners to treat with the Spanish 
government on this subject, as well as on the question 
of boundaries and for a commercial treaty. The in¬ 
structions with regard to navigation were sufficiently 
explicit. It was made a sine qua non that our right 
be acknowledged of navigating the Mississippi, in its 
whole breadth and length, from the source to the sea, 
as established by the treaty of 1763 ; that neither the 
vessels, cargoes, nor persons on board be stopped, 
visited, or subjected to the payment of any duty 
whatsoever; or if a visit must be permitted, that it 
be under such restrictions as to produce the least 
possible inconvenience; but it should be altogether 
avoided as the parent of perpetual broils ; that such 
conveniences be allowed us ashore as might render our 
right of navigation practicable, and under such regu¬ 
lations as might, bona fide, respect the preservation of 
peace and order alone, and might not have an object 
to embarrass our navigation, or raise a revenue on it. 
The commissioners were also instructed that no 
phrase should be admitted into the treaty which 
could express or imply that we took the navigation of 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


273 


the Mississippi as a grant from Spain, although this 
might be waived rather than fail in concluding a 
treaty. They were told, also, that no proposition 
could be entertained for compensation in exchange 
for the navigation ; and in case of any such proposi¬ 
tion it was to be offset by a claim for damages to the 
commerce of the United States by duties and deten¬ 
tions at New Orleans during nine years. 

One adverse circumstance in the negotiations was 
that Gardoqui was appointed as Spanish commis¬ 
sioner. He had been in the United States, engaged 
in previous negotiations, and had so much experience 
of the indecision and weakness of the confederation 
that he was unwilling to make any concessions, and 
was extremely dilatory in his management. 

Another adverse circumstance was in the foreign 
relations of Spain. The power in that country had 
come into the hands of a young man, Godoy, who, 
hoping to save the life of Louis XVI., had interfered 
diplomatically in such a way that war was soon after¬ 
ward declared against Spain by France. There was 
an inclination on the part of Spain to an English alli¬ 
ance, and our commissioners feared lest, by pressing 
too greatly our claims, England, with whom our re¬ 
lations were at that time very unfriendly, might unite 
with Spain in opposing us. They therefore recom¬ 
mended to our Government to postpone negotiations 

for a while. Their instructions, however, were so 
18 


274 


A MERIC A jV DIPL OMA C Y. 


precise that they felt it necessary to act upon them ; 
and, although they were successful in settling certain 
questions in regard to the Indians, they made no 
progress in the main objects of their mission. The 
commission was soon afterward dissolved by the de¬ 
parture of Mr. Carmichael; and Mr. Short, who was 
left charge d’affaires, seems to have become person¬ 
ally disagreeable to the Spanish government. 

Spain was unsuccessful in its war with France, and 
in July, 1795, Godoy succeeded in making a peace 
with the Republic, at Bale, for which he was given 
the title of “ Prince of the Peace.” Indeed, it was 
through Mr. Monroe, our minister at Paris, that the 
first advances from Spain to France were made ; and 
in order to secure Mr. Monroe’s good offices in the 
matter, Godoy assured him that the settlement of the 
difficulties with the United States would be made at 
the same time and on the most favorable terms. 
When the first advances of Spain were made through 
Mr. Monroe, she also applied directly to the United 
States, and in August, 1794, Mr. Jaudenes, the Span¬ 
ish commissioner, wrote to the Secretary of State, 
expressing 

“ His great regret at the little progress made in the negotia¬ 
tions between the two countries, owing to the fact that his 
Majesty would not treat so long as the plenipotentiaries were 
not furnished with the amplest powers, or were directed by 
their secret instructions to conclude a partial and not a general 


FREE NAVIGATION- OF RIVERS. 


275 


treaty ; at least his Majesty expected that the ministers ap¬ 
pointed by the United States should be persons of such char¬ 
acter, distinction, and temper as would become a residence 
near his royal person, and were required by the gravity of the 
questions under negotiation ; that the well-known 

misconceptions of Mr. Carmichael, and the want of circum¬ 
spection in the conduct of Mr. Short, rendered it impossi¬ 
ble to conclude this negotiation with them.” 

There ensued a long conversation between Mr. 
Randolph and Mr. Jaudenes as to what the objections 
and difficulties really had been, and especially as to 
what Messrs. Carmichael and Short had done which 
rendered them obnoxious to the Spanish govern¬ 
ment.* 

After receiving the explanation from the Spanish 
representative, and ascertaining that, if a proper per¬ 
son were sent to Spain, the business stood a fair chance 
of being settled quickly, the President, in November, 
1794, appointed Thomas Pinckney, then minister at 
London, as minister plenipotentiary at Madrid, with 
full powers to conclude a treaty. Before Mr. Pinck- 

* Mr. John Adams writes in his diary, under the date of 
April 21, 1778, that Carmichael was a native of Maryland, of 
Scotch extraction, and that he was in England or Scotland 
when the Revolution began. “ He had talents and education, 
but was considered by the soundest men who knew him as too 
much of an adventurer. What was his moral character, and 
what his conduct in Spain I shall leave to Mr. Jay ; but he 
was represented to me as having contributed much to the ani¬ 
mosities and exasperation among the Americans at Paris and 
Passy.” 


2 76 


AMERICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


ney reached Madrid the Spanish commissioner sent 
to Mr. Randolph the points which would probably 
form the basis of negotiations. One of these was 
the navigation of the Mississippi. On Mr. Pinckney’s 
arrival in Madrid, about the middle of June, 1795? he 
found a great inclination to delay ; and finally, after 
negotiations had begun, there were differences on 
three points: 1, The Spanish government refused 
entirely to treat on the subject of commerce; 2, they 
demanded a division of the claims against Spain; 
and 3, while they admitted that the navigation of 
the Mississippi should be free to both nations, they 
objected to a depot for the commerce of the United 
States being established at New Orleans, and insisted 
that the right of navigation should be restricted 
solely to the subjects of Spain and to the citizens of 
the United States. 

When he found that these differences were insuper¬ 
able, Mr. Pinckney demanded his passports on Octo¬ 
ber 24th. This brought Godoy to terms, and so fast 
did negotiations proceed that on October 17, 1795, 
the treaty was signed. By its fourth article his 
Catholic Majesty 

“Agreed that the navigation of the Mississippi, in its whole 
breadth from its source to the ocean, should be free only to his 
subjects and the citizens of the United States, unless he should 
extend this privilege to the subjects of other powers by special 
convention.’' 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


2 77 


And by Article 22 citizens of the United States 
were allowed 

“For the space of three years to deposit their merchandise 
and effects in the port of New Orleans, and to export them 
from thence without paying any other price than for the hire 
of the stores ; and his Majesty promises either to continue 
this permission, if he finds during that time that it is not pre¬ 
judicial to the interests of Spain, or if he should not agree to 
continue it there, he will assign to them on another part of 
the banks of the Mississippi an equivalent establishment.” 

So far as the Mississippi was concerned this treaty 
was all that the United States could desire. Godoy 
himself says of it afterward in his “ Memoirs : ” 

“ This was, moreover, a formal act of navigation, indepen¬ 
dently of carefully providing for the common interests of both 
nations, that realized the first application of modern ideas re¬ 
specting the equality of maritime rights and the measures 
which humanity enjoins in order to lessen the evils of war— 
ideas hitherto recorded in books and proclaimed by the civili¬ 
zation of the age, but the practical application of which has at 
all times been opposed by England.” 

Nevertheless the execution of this treaty was at¬ 
tended by numerous obstacles. It was a long time 
before the boundary lines were finally arranged, and it 
was fully three years before the Spanish troops were 
withdrawn from the territory of the United States. 
Delays were demanded both for Natchez and the 
Walnut Hills. In May, 1797, the Spanish govern¬ 
ment, through their minister at Washington, addressed 


278 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


a formal protest and remonstrance against the various 
provisions in our own treaty with Great Britain 
signed in 1794. Some of the Spanish objections 
were to the principle of free ships, free goods, and to 
the designation of contraband articles; but there was 
especial protest against the rights given to Great 
Britain on the Mississippi. It had been stipulated in 
an explanatory article of the treaty of 1794, signed at 
Philadelphia on May 4, 1796, that no stipulations in 
any treaty subsequently concluded “ can be under¬ 
stood to derogate in any manner from the rights of 
free intercourse and commerce secured by the third 
article of the treaty” of 1794. In this third article it 
had been stated that “ the river Mississippi shall, ac¬ 
cording to the treaty of peace, be entirely open to 
both parties.” Spain referred to the fourth article of the 
treaty of 1795, by which the right of free navigation 
of the Mississippi belonged solely to Spanish subjects 
and to citizens of the United States, and argued that 
by the treaty of 1763 Spain had ceded to England both 
banks of the Mississippi, which carried with it the 
free navigation of the river; that by the treaty of 
1783 England had granted that right to the United 
States; but that, by a treaty of the same date made 
with Spain, England had restored to Spain both banks 
of the Mississippi without reserving the right of naviga¬ 
tion. But, as this right had therefore passed away from 
England, she could not cede it to the United States. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 2j<j 

Besides, even if by that treaty England had not been 
deprived of the right to use the navigation, the separa¬ 
tion of the colonies had destroyed any right which the 
Americans might have formerly pleaded as English 
subjects. There was, therefore, but one source of de¬ 
rivation for the right of the United States—the special 
treaty with Spain—but that treaty had conferred the 
navigation exclusively upon the subjects of Spain 
and citizens of the United States, and therefore the 
United States had no power to grant this privilege 
to any one else. The answer of Mr. Pickering, the 
Secretary of State, was weak. He had to admit that 
if the right of the United States to the navigation of 
the Mississippi originated in their treaty with Spain 
of 1795, they certainly had no right to grant it to 
Great Britain in 1794. He therefore brought up ex¬ 
tracts from Mr. Pinckney’s notes in which reference 
to the rights of Great Britain had been made, and 
where Mr. Pinckney had contended that the words 
“alone and exclusively ” submitted in the projects of 
Godoy should be omitted. But, unfortunately, the 
notes of the negotiation could not bear against the 
express stipulation. Another ground taken by Mr. 
Pickering was still weaker, that the stipulation as to 
navigation was not a joint stipulation, but sole on the 
part of the Spanish King, and that it concerned the 
United States no further than that it gave them the 
freedom of navigation. There was, however, not 


28 o 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


much use in arguing the question, for it must have 
been understood that the United States would have 
been perfectly willing to accept any arrangement from 
Spain that practically opened the river, without too 
strictly scrutinizing its language, provided that the 
concession did not rest expressly on the grant from 
Spain. 

“ The objection to the supplementary article between Great 
Britain and the United States,” as Mr. Trescot says, was “ sim¬ 
ply captious, for it could confer no possible right and in no 
way go a step beyond the original article in the treaty of 1783, 
by which the United States did nothing more than grant to 
Great Britain whatever right to navigation she might possess, 
neither the original nor the supplementary articles undertaking 
to express what those rights were.”* 

After all objections and difficulties seemed to 
be overcome, an event occurred which might have 
given rise to serious conflict. Morales, the Spanish 
intendant, on October 2, 1802, suspended the right of 
deposit at New Orleans, which had been enjoyed since 
the ratification of the treaty, and had been found by 

* The commissioners who negotiated the treaty of peace 
wrote to Secretary Livingston, from Paris, on December 14, 
1782 : “ As to the separate article, we beg to observe that it 
was our policy to render the navigation of the river Mississippi 
so important to Britain as that their views might correspond 
with ours on that subject. Their possessing the country on 
the river north of the line from the Lake of the Woods affords a 
foundation for their claiming such navigation.”—John Adams : 
Life and Works, viii., p. 19. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 28 1 

the Americans of great use. The object of this decree 
was in order that the trade might fall into the hands 
of the Spaniards, now that a general pacification had 
been made in Europe; for while the war continued 
the Spaniards had not been able to carry on their 
trade. The action of Morales was disavowed by the 
Spanish government, but the difficulties were not 
entirely removed until the cession of Louisiana by 
France in 1803, when our rights were of course ex¬ 
tended to the mouth of the river. By the subsequent 
cession of East and West Florida in 1819 the whole 
of the banks of the Mississippi, from the source to the 
mouth, became American ; and as the stipulations for 
the rights of British subjects to the navigation of the 
river had not been mentioned in the treaty of Ghent 
of 1814, they lapsed; so that during the negotiations 
on the question of the St. Lawrence, ten or twelve 
years later, we refused to acknowledge any rights of 
England to the use of the Mississippi, it being all in¬ 
cluded within the United States, unless some branch 
should be discovered rising within the British do¬ 


minions. 


282 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


B.— THE ST. LAWRENCE. 

Petition from New York.—Instructions to Mr. Rush.—Reply 
of Great Britain to our Claim of Free Navigation.—Mr. 
Clay’s Arguments.—Mr. Gallatin’s Opinions.—Suspension 
of Negotiations.—Treaty of 1854.—Treaty of t 87 t , Grant¬ 
ing the Right Forever. 

The American claim to the free navigation of the 
St. Lawrence rested on the same basis of natural right 
as that to the use of the Mississippi, Great Britain 
being here substituted for Spain. The action of the 
congresses at Paris in 1814 and at Vienna in 1815, by 
which the navigation of the Rhine and its affluents, 
as well as of the Scheldt, had been thrown open to 
the whole world, were additional arguments for the 
United States, and showed how much the general 
feeling of the world, as to the use of navigable rivers, 
had advanced. 

There had been no mention of the St. Lawrence in 
any of our treaties with Great Britain; but in 1823 
the inhabitants of Franklin County, N. Y., presented 
a petition to Congress, asking for the right to be 
secured to them of sending their exports, chiefly 
lumber, through the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic. 
They had no difficulty in disposing of their products, 
whether lumber, pot and pearl ashes, salted provisions, 
or flour, in the markets of Montreal or Quebec, but 


FREE NAVIGATION OE RIVERS. 


283 


they could be sent no further. They were sold to 
English subjects who received the middleman’s profits. 
This trade had gradually increased, and in 1821 the 
amount of a single article—lumber—transported down 
the St. Lawrence, amounted in value to $650,000, 
without bringing into the estimate the portion which 
found its way through Lake Champlain and the Sorel 
to Montreal and Quebec. This trade, so far as it 
dealt in the principal articles of flour and lumber, was 
almost entirely destroyed by an act of Parliament in 
August, 1822, which was in effect, though not in form, 
prohibitory. 

Congress reported favorably on this petition, and 
in June, 1823, Mr. John Quincy Adams instructed 
Mr. Rush, our minister at London, to present our 
claim to the British government. Mr. Rush was 
then engaged in negotiations for obtaining various 
commercial rights, as well as for other subjects, and 
found occasion to present the matter to Great Britain, 
much apparently to the surprise of the British nego¬ 
tiators, who said that, on the principle of accommo¬ 
dation they were willing to treat with this claim of 
the United States in a spirit of entire amity; that is, 
as they explained, to treat it as a concession on the 
part of Great Britain, for which the United States 
must be prepared to offer a full equivalent. This 
was the only light in which they could entertain the 
question. As to the claim of right, they hoped that 


284 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


it would not even be advanced. Persisted in, they 
were willing to persuade themselves it would never 
be. It was equally novel and extraordinary. They 
could not repress their strong feelings and surprise at 
its bare intimation. Great Britain possessed the ab¬ 
solute sovereignty over this river in all parts where 
both banks were of her territorial dominion. Her 
right, hence, to exclude a foreign nation from navigat¬ 
ing it was not to be doubted, scarcely to be discussed. 
This was the manner in which it was first received. 
They opposed to the claim an immediate, positive, 
unqualified resistance. 

“I said,” said Mr. Rush, “ that our claim was neither novel 
nor extraordinary. It was one that had been well considered 
by my Government, and was believed to be maintainable on 
the soundest principles of public law. The question had 
been familiar to the past discussions of the United States, as 
their state papers which were before the world would show. It 
had been asserted, and successfully asserted, in relation to an¬ 
other great river of the American continent flowing to the 
south—the Mississippi—at a time when both its lower banks 
were under the dominion of a foreign power. The essential 
principles that had governed in the one case were now appli¬ 
cable to the other.” * 

Mr. Rush thought it best to consign his arguments 
to a written paper, which was duly presented and en- 

* The official correspondence is published in Congressional 
Documents, Session 1827-28, No. 43 ; see, also, Foreign Re¬ 
lations, folio, vi., 757-777. 


FREE NAVIGATION- OF RIVERS. 285 

tered upon the protocol of the eighteenth conference. 
At the twenty-fourth conference the British negotia¬ 
tors presented their reply, which had been drawn up 
by five of the most eminent publicists of the kingdom. 

It is not worth while here to recapitulate the ar¬ 
guments employed by both governments, except to 
say that the United States rested their claim entirely 
upon natural rights, and the English their opposition 
thereto on the previous custom of nations. “ The 
American Government,” as Mr. Clay subsequently 
wrote to Mr. Gallatin, “ has not contended, and does 
not mean to contend, for any principle, the benefit of 
which in analogous circumstances it would deny to 
Great Britain.” Mr. Clay admitted that if it were 
found that a branch of the Columbia River rose in 
British territory, the British would have a right to 
navigate the Columbia to the sea; and so, if further 
exploration of the country should develop a connec¬ 
tion between the Mississippi and Upper Canada. He 
said : 

“ It is not necessary to discuss all the extreme cases which 
may be fancifully presented, such as the foreign claim to pass¬ 
ing the Isthmus of Darien, to drive a trade between Europe 
and distant India through two oceans, or that of passing 
through England to trade with France or other portions of the 
European continent. Examples of that kind belong to the 
species of sophistry which would subvert all principles by 
pushing their assumed consequences into the regions of ex¬ 
travagant supposition.” 


286 


A ME RICA .V DIPL OMA C Y. 


No answer was made at the time to the British 
paper consigned to the protocols of the conferences 
between Mr. Rush and the British negotiators, until 
Mr. Clay had become Secretary of State. Mr. Gal¬ 
latin was sent as minister to England, and among the 
subjects to which his attention was especially directed 
was that of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. Mr. 
Clay, in a very interesting and able paper, resumed 
the whole case of the United States. He desired not 
only that the right to the free navigation of the St. 
Lawrence should be acknowledged as a right, but that 
the concession should be given of depots for Amer¬ 
ican produce at Quebec, and possibly also at Mon¬ 
treal. In his instructions Mr. Clay made one very 
good point, saying: 

“ If the United States were disposed to exert within their 
jurisdiction a power over the St. Lawrence similar to that 
which is exercised by Great Britain, British subjects could be 
made to experience the same kind of inconvenience as that 
to which American citizens are now exposed. The best, and 
for descending navigation the only channel of the St. Lawrence, 
between Bernhard’s Island and the American shore, is within 
our limits ; and every British boat and raft, therefore, that de¬ 
scends the St. Lawrence comes within the exclusive jurisdic¬ 
tion of the United States. The trade of the upper province is 
consequently in our power.” 

Indeed, a report to the Legislature of the State of 
New York, in March, 1825, recommended an applica¬ 
tion to Congress to exercise this power in retaliation 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


287 


for the British act of 1822 regulating the Canadian 
trade. This report said : 

“The right to navigate the St. Lawrence can be of very 
little use to us unless we are allowed to trade at Montreal and 
our trade there is placed on a liberal footing.” 

Mr. Gallatin, in giving his opinion on his instruc¬ 
tions, wrote to Mr. Clay from New York June 29, 
1826: 

“ Generally speaking, two courses present themselves : 1, To 
insist on the right, and wait for a favorable opportunity to as¬ 
sert it, even at the risk of losing for the present the advantages 
which might be derived from a practical arrangement ; 2, to 
waive for the present, without renouncing, the right, and to 
make a commercial arrangement which may remove or lessen 
the evils now complained of.” * 

Subsequently, in giving to President Adams an 
account of the state of negotiations, Mr. Gallatin 
wrote : 

“ St. Lawrence wholly impracticable to obtain, and inexpe¬ 
dient to offer any article founded avowedly or by implication 
on our right to navigate that river ; none suggested for a tem¬ 
porary arrangement of the inland intercourse with Canada, 
implying only, but without doubt, reservation of the right.” f 

President Adams in reply wrote : 

“ One inch of ground yielded on the northwest coast, one 
step backward from the claim to the navigation of the St. 
Lawrence, one hair’s-breadth of compromise upon the article 


* Gallatin’s Writings, ii., p. 313. 


t Ibid., p. 348. 


288 


A MER1C. A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


of impressments, would be certain to meet the reprobation of 
the Senate. In this temper of the parties all we can hope to 
accomplish will be to adjourn controversies which we cannot 
adjust, and say to Britain, as the Abbe Bernis said to Cardinal 
Fleury, ‘ Monseigneur, j’attendrai.’ ” * 

Gallatin was cautious in his negotiations, and wrote 
to Mr. Clay at the end of September, 1827 : 

“The determination not to open the colonial intercourse, 
and that not to negotiate on the river St. Lawrence without 
something like a disclaimer of the right, had been taken be¬ 
fore my arrival, and on both points this government was im¬ 
movable.” f 

Again, six weeks later, he wrote to the President : 

“ This might, in my opinion, be obtained at any time by re¬ 
nouncing the right. It is certain that it could not be secured 
at this time by any agreement which would not be tantamount 
to a renunciation.” t 

When Mr. Everett went to London as minister; 
Gallatin, who had already returned, wrote to him on 
this subject: 

“ The argument derived from natural law is strong. The 
precedents, that of the Scheldt excepted, are, I fear, against 
us. The most formidable objection is to be found in forty 
years’ acquiescence, and in having accepted by the treaty of 
1794 a part only, and very limited, of the navigation, unac¬ 
companied by any assertion or reservation of the right. I have 
no doubt of the free use being ultimately allowed by Great 
Britain, not as a matter of right, but because it is clearly their 

* Gallatin’s Writings, ii. p. 368. t Ibid., p. 372. t Ibid., p. 395. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 289 

interest to afford every facility to draw our produce to 
Quebec.” * 

Here negotiations rested for many years. The 
trade between the United States and Canada had 
taken a very different turn. Lumber, instead of being 
sent abroad from Northern New York, was imported 
into the United States from Canada. The canal 
system of the State of New York seemed to answer 
all the needs of the inhabitants of this part of the 
country. But in 1854 the disputes about the rights 
of fishery led to the conclusion of a treaty, which, 
while regulating this subject, agreed for a commercial 
reciprocity between Canada and the United States. 
By the fourth article it was agreed that the citizens of 
the United States should have the right to navigate 
the river St. Lawrence and the canals of Canada, 
which had been constructed since the previous nego¬ 
tiations, as a means of communicating between the 
great lakes and the Atlantic Ocean ; but the British 
government retained the right of suspending this 
privilege on giving due notice. As an equivalent to 
the privilege of navigating the St. Lawrence, British 
subjects were given the right to navigate Lake Michi¬ 
gan. Evidently by this treaty we obtained the navi¬ 
gation of the St. Lawrence as a concession and not as 
a right. The treaty was made terminable after ten 

* Gallatin’s Writings, ii., p. 403. 

*9 


290 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


years on a twelvemonth’s notice by either party. 
During the war of the Rebellion, owing partly to the 
predominance of protectionists in Congress, who ob¬ 
jected to the comparative free trade with Canada, 
and partly to the feeling against the Canadians aris¬ 
ing out of various incidents connected with the war, 
the United States gave notice for the termination of 
this treaty, and the treaty accordingly came to an end 
on March 17, 1866. 

The question remained in this state until the nego¬ 
tiations at Washington, which resulted in the treaty of 
May 8, 1871. Among the various subjects treated by 
the high commissioners was the navigation of the St. 
Lawrence River. We still claimed that navigation as 
a right. The British commissioners were willing to 
yield it as a concession, provided that we should give 
the right of navigation of Lake Michigan as an equiv¬ 
alent. This our commissioners absolutely refused. 
The subject was several times discussed, and finally 
they were asked whether, if the St. Lawrence were 
declared free, we would admit the same rights to cer¬ 
tain rivers rising in the British territories, passing 
through the province of Alaska, and emptying into 
the Pacific Ocean. This the United States took under 
consideration, and the result was the twenty-sixth ar¬ 
ticle of the treaty, which stated that 

“ The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, ascending and 
descending, from the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, where 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


291 


it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, 
to, and into the sea, shall forever remain free and open for the 
purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, 
subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain, or of the 
Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of 
free navigation.” 

The rivers of which we granted the free navigation 
to British subjects were the Yukon, the Porcupine, 
and the Stikine. The British government engaged 
to urge upon the Dominion of Canada to secure to 
the citizens of the United States the use of the Wel¬ 
land, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion 
on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Do¬ 
minion. The United States gave the use of the St. 
Clair Flats’ Canal on equal terms, and engaged to urge 
upon the State governments to secure for British sub¬ 
jects the use of the several State canals connected 
with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by 
the boundary line. We also granted the use for ten 
years of the navigation of Lake Michigan, as an 
equivalent for certain fishing rights on the coast, and 
terminable with them. Those rights having now 
terminated, the privilege of navigating Lake Michigan 
has also ended. 


292 


A MER1CA N DIPL DMA C Y. 


C .—THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN. 

American Enterprise in the Pacific.—The Russian-American 
Company.—The Russian Ukase of 1821.—Negotiations.— 
Treaty of 1824.—Further Proposals.—Public Opinion.— 
Negotiations of 1834.—Treaty of 1867 ceding Russian 
America. 

Years before the United States possessed a foot of 
land on the Pacific coast, adventurous American sea¬ 
men had doubled Cape Horn. In the autumn of 
1788 the ship Columbia, of two hundred and twenty 
tons, and the sloop Washington of ninety tons, ar¬ 
rived in Nootka Sound from Boston, passed the win¬ 
ter there, explored Queen Charlotte’s Sound and the 
Strait of San Juan de Fuca. The Columbia took a 
cargo of furs to Canton, and thence a cargo of tea to 
Boston, being the first vessel to carry the American 
flag round the world. From that time on until 1814 
the direct trade between the American coasts and 
China was almost entirely carried on in American ves¬ 
sels. The opposition of the East India Company 
prevented British merchants from engaging in this 
trade; entrance to the Chinese ports was forbidden to 
Russian ships; and there were few ships of other na¬ 
tions in that part of the Pacific. After the fur-trade 
on the northwestern coasts had been reorganized by 
the foundation, in 1798, of the Russian-American 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


293 


Company, there were complaints against the Ameri¬ 
cans of furnishing arms and ammunition to the na¬ 
tives, and had it been possible for the Russians to 
carry on their commerce without our aid, they would 
gladly have excluded our vessels. In 1806 the ques¬ 
tion of expelling the Americans was settled for the 
time by the fact that the Russian garrison and set¬ 
tlers at Sitka would all have died of hunger, but for 
the opportune arrival of the American ship Juno.* 
Three years later the Russian government made rep¬ 
resentations to the United States on the subject of 
the illicit trade, which, it was alleged, our citizens 
carried on with the natives of the North Pacific 
coasts, and desired that we should make a conven¬ 
tion, or at least pass an act of Congress to hinder the 
sale of spirits, arms, and ammunition in those parts. 
Finally, Russia proposed an arrangement by which 
American vessels should supply the Russian settle¬ 
ments on the Pacific with provisions and manufact¬ 
ures, and should do the carrying trade to Canton, on 
condition of abstaining from intercourse with the na¬ 
tives. There were several reasons for not accepting 
this proposition, but especially because it was claimed 
that the Russian possessions extended southward to 
the mouth of the Columbia River. We were then 
engaged in a dispute with Great Britain about this 


* History of Oregon and California, by Robert Greenhow. 


294 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C 1'. 


very coast, and naturally could not admit the claims 
of Russia.* 

The trading post of Astoria, founded by Mr. John 
Jacob Astor, was taken by the British during the 
war; it was found impossible in the treaty of Ghent 
to settle the boundary line westward of the Lake of 
the Woods; and by the Convention of 1818 the 
northwest coast westward of the Rocky Mountains 
was, for ten years, left free and open to the vessels, 
citizens, and subjects of the two powers, without prej¬ 
udice to their respective claims. In December, 1820, 
immediately after the ratification of the Florida 
treaty, a resolution was passed by the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives “ that an inquiry should be made as to 
the situation of the settlements on the Pacific Ocean, 
and as to the expediency of occupying the Columbia 
River.” A favorable report was made, and a bill was 
introduced for the occupation of the Columbia River, 
which was, however, suffered to lie on the table for 
the rest of the session. 

Such was the state of affairs when suddenly, at 
least to us, in September, 1821, the Emperor Alex¬ 
ander issued a ukase to the effect that 

“ The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishery, and of all 
other industry on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the 
whole of the northwestern coast of America, beginning from 


* For the papers, see Foreign Relations, folio, v., pp. 432-471. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


295 


Behring’s Straits to the fifty-first degree of north latitude, 
also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, 
as well as along the Kurile Islands from Behring’s Straits to 
the South Cape of the island of Urup, viz., to 45° 50' north 
latitude, are exclusively granted to Russian subjects. It is 
therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on 
the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, 
but also to approach within less than one hundred Italian 
miles. The transgressor’s vessel is subject to confiscation 
along with the whole cargo.” 

The first information of this was received by our 
Government in a note from Mr. Poletica, the Russian 
minister, dated February 28, 1822, which gave the 
whole history, from Russian sources, of the Russian 
discovery of the northwestern coast of America and 
the subsequent settlements there. There was much 
reference to the accounts of Russian explorers, all of 
which are now perfectly well known to geographers, 
but which at that time, not having been published in 
English, were looked upon with considerable distrust 
by our Government. Mr. Poletica defended the 
choice of the fifty-first parallel upon the ground that 
this was midway between Sitka and the establishment 
of the United States at the mouth of the Columbia, 
and maintained that Russia would be justified in 
exercising the right of sovereignty over the zvliole of 
the Pacific Ocean north of the fifty-first parallel, as 
that section of the sea was bounded on both sides by 
Russian territories, and was thus, in fact, a close sea. 


296 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


With regard to this unwarrantable extension of the 
doctrine “ of the King’s chambers,” Mr. Adams 
quietly remarked that the distance between the 
shores of Asia and America, on the parallel of fifty- 
one degrees north, is four thousand miles, and said : 

“ From the period of the existence of the United States as 
an independent nation, their vessels had freely nav igated those 
seas ; and the right to navigate them was a part of that inde¬ 
pendence, as also the right of their citizens to trade, even in 
arms and munitions of war, with the aboriginal natives of the 
northwest coast of America, who were not under the territorial 
jurisdiction of other nations.” 

He at the same time denied the Russian claim to 
any part of America south of fifty-five degrees. 

This ukase was undoubtedly due to the great in¬ 
fluence which the Russian-American Company then 
possessed at the Russian court. Professor F. von 
Martens, the Russian publicist, now brings up the 
one-hundred-mile limit contained therein, as an in¬ 
stance of “ greatly exaggerated claims.” * 

Mr. Middleton, our minister at St. Petersburg, 
wrote on the subject on August 20, 1822 : 

“ Baron de Tuyl is coming out as minister from Russia, 
charged with a proposal for negotiating on the subject.” 

Mr. Speransky, then Governor-General of Siberia, 
had told him that the Russians had at first thought 


* Volkerrecht, i., p. 380. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


297 


of declaring the North Pacific ocean a mare clausum , 
but afterward took one hundred Italian miles from 
the thirty leagues in the treaty of Utrecht, which is 
an exclusion only from “a fishery and not from navi¬ 
gation.” * 

Baron de Tuyl duly came, was found by Mr. 
Adams “ more agreeable, much more complaisant 
than his predecessor,” and showed every disposition 
to come to an arrangement. The controversy, how¬ 
ever, was chiefly carried on at St. Petersburg. When 
the Cabinet considered the instructions for Mr. Mid¬ 
dleton, Mr. Adams said : “ I thought no territorial 
right could be admitted on this continent, as the 
Russians appear to have no settlement upon it except 
that in California.” He was thereupon authorized 
to draft instructions for Mr. Middleton who was, 

“ First, to propose an article similar to that in our conven¬ 
tion with Great Britain of October, 1818, agreeing that the 
whole coast should be open for the navigation of all the parties 
for a definite term of years, and as there would probably be 
no inducement for the Russians to agree to this, he should 
then offer to agree to the boundary line for Russia at the fifty- 
fifth degree, on condition that the coast might be frequented 
for trade with the natives, as it has been heretofore.” 

Mr. Adams devoted great attention to the subject, 
reading up all the books of travel and discovery on 
the northwest that he was able to lay his hands upon, 

* Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vi., p. 93. 


298 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


and wrote subsequently in his diary, on July 1st : “1 
find proof enough to put down the Russian govern¬ 
ment, but how shall we answer the Russian can¬ 
non ? ” * A few days later the Russian minister held 
a friendly conversation with him, and desired to know 
the purport of the instructions to Mr. Middleton, 
which were told him. Mr. Adams says : 

“ I told him specially that we should contest the right of 
Russia to any territorial establishment on this continent; and 
that we should assume distinctly the principle that the Ameri¬ 
can continents are no longer subjects for any new European 
colonial establishments.” f 

This was the first hint of the policy which after¬ 
ward came to be known as the Monroe doctrine. 

While negotiations were going on at St. Peters¬ 
burg, Baron de Tuyl was from time to time anxious 
and troubled in mind. At one time he brought Mr. 
Adams an account of the toasts that had been drunk 
at a dinner given to Commodore Hull, who was 
going to take command of a Pacific squadron. These 
toasts were belligerent in tone, and the minister was 
fearful lest there might be bloodshed, although the 
Russian cruisers had received the most specific in¬ 
structions. At another time the Baron brought a 
Washington Gazette , with a paragraph taken from the 
Boston Sentinel , purporting to be a letter from 
Washington, which he thought would be annoying to 

* Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vi., p. 159. t Ibid., p. 163. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


299 


the Emperor. He said that the Emperor entered 
much into the spirit of the age, and was solicitous to 
stand fair in public opinion. “ I took the paper,” 
said Mr. Adams, “ and told him I would prepare a 
paragraph on the subject.” The paragraph, of a 
quieting nature, duly appeared as an editorial in the 
National Intelligencer , and Baron de Tuyl immedi¬ 
ately came to thank the secretary for his courtesy in 
publishing it. 

The negotiations of Mr. Middleton resulted to our 
satisfaction. The Russian government gave way, 
and by a convention concluded on April 17, 1824, it 
was agreed that the southern boundary of the Rus¬ 
sian possessions in America should be placed at 54 0 
40' north latitude ; that navigation and fishing should 
not be disturbed or restrained upon points not al¬ 
ready occupied ; but that the citizens of the United 
States should not resort to any point where there was 
a Russian establishment without the permission of 
the governor or commander ; and, reciprocally, that 
the subjects of Russia should not resort, without per¬ 
mission, to any establishment of the United States 
upon the northwest coast. The sale of spirituous 
liquors, or fire-arms or other arms, powder or muni¬ 
tions of war, to the natives was forbidden. Noth¬ 
ing was said in the treaty itself about the Asiatic 
coast. 

Some time after the treaty had been signed the 


300 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


Russian-American Company made loud outcries and 
exerted special influence to prevail on the Russian 
government to send new instructions to their minister. 
In an interview on August 23, 1824, Baron de Tuyl 
related his perplexities to Mr. Adams, and said that 
he would like an explanatory note to be signed, show¬ 
ing that the Russian government did not understand 
that the convention would give liberty to the citizens 
of the United States to trade on the coast of Siberia 
and in the Aleutian Islands. He also wanted a mod¬ 
ification of the treaty, which would keep vessels 
from trading north of the fifty-seventh degree. Mr. 
Adams represented the difficulties in the way of com¬ 
plying with these requests ; that owing to our form of 
government no explanatory note signed simply by the 
Executive would be sufficient; and that if any change 
was to be made, it was far better to make a new con¬ 
vention. He advised the Russian minister to wait 
until the treaty was ratified, and then if his govern¬ 
ment, on second thought, still desired it, he could pre¬ 
sent his note. Baron de Tuyl, who himself doubted 
about the wisdom of the Russian proposals, accepted 
the suggestion, withdrew the memorandum he had 
presented, and begged it to be considered as non 
avenu. The treaty was ratified, and that was the end 
of the Russian proposal. 

This dispute with Russia made a far deeper im- 

4 

pression than we should now think. The newspapers 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


301 


were full of paragraphs and squibs.* The end was, 
however, very satisfactory to us. Mr. Madison, in 
writing to President Monroe on August 5, 1824, said : 

“ The convention with Russia is a propitious event in sub¬ 
stituting amicable adjustment for the risks of hostile collision. 
But I give the Emperor little credit for his assent to the princi¬ 
ple of mare liberum in the North Pacific. His pretensions 
were so absurd, and so disgusting to the maritime world, that 
he could not do better than retreat from them through the 
forms of negotiations. It is well that the cautious, if not cour¬ 
teous, policy of England toward Russia has had the effect of 
making us, in the public eye, the leading power in arresting 
her expansive ambition.” f 

In May and June, 1822, the English papers had a 
good deal to say about the subject, and the London 
Times remarked : 

“ Luckily for the world the United States of America have 
not submitted with equal patience to the decrees of the auto¬ 
crat. An important discussion is now depending between 
these two countries, a discussion in which we, however, are 
more deeply interested than the United States.” 

* Here is one from the Baltimore Chronicle, reprinted in 
Niles’ Register on May 10, 1823 : 

“ Old Neptune one morning was seen on the rocks, 
Shedding tears by the pailful and tearing his locks ; 

He cried, a Land Lubber has stole, on this day, 

Full four thousand miles of my ocean away ; 

He swallows the earth (he exclaims with emotion). 

And then to quench appetite, slap goes the ocean ; 
Brother Jove must look out for his skies, let me tell ye, 

Or the Russian will bury them all in his belly.” 

f Madison’s Works, iii., p. 446. 


302 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


This was preceded and followed by violent abuse of 
the English government for taking no steps itself. 
The Liverpool Mercury of May 31st followed in 
much the same strain.* Sir James Mackintosh did, 
however, during that session of Parliament, make a 
question of that subject. In the subsequent year, on 
May 21, 1823, he again raised the question, and Mr. 
Canning replied that a protest on* the part of England 
had been made on the first promulgation of those 
principles, which had been renewed and discussed at 
the Congress of Verona, and had been again presented 
in subsequent negotiations which were still pending 
at St. Petersburg. 

The fourth article of the treaty, which gave for ten 
years the right of fishing and trading in the bays, 
creeks, harbors, etc., of the northwestern coast, ex¬ 
pired in 1834. The Russians claimed that, in spite of 
the provisions of the treaty, American vessels in pur¬ 
suit of their fisheries had sold spirituous liquors and 
fire-arms to the natives ; and the Russian minister, 
therefore, by instructions from his government, in¬ 
formed the Secretary of State of the expiration of the 
fourth article of the treaty, and begged him to have an 
official notification of some kind issued to that effect. 
Russia at the same time claimed a right of possession 
down to 54 0 40' of north latitude. Mr. Forsyth ob¬ 
jected to an official notification, but consented to an 
* Niles’ Register, July 27, 1822. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


303 


unofficial announcement in the Globe , to the effect, 
that, since the expiration of the fourth article, Amer¬ 
ican vessels would be bound by the other articles of 
the treaty, and could frequent those parts of the coast 
occupied by Russia only by the consent of the Rus¬ 
sian commanders. Mr. Wilkins, and subsequently 
Mr. Dallas, our ministers to St. Petersburg, were in- 
structed to negotiate for a continuance, either in per¬ 
petuity or for a term of years, of the fourth article. 
We refused to admit that we had implied by the treaty 
of 1824 any acknowledgment of the right of Russia to 
the possession of the coast above the latitude of 54 0 
4c/. Mr. Forsyth argued that if we had implied any 
such right, Russia, in the same way, would have im¬ 
plied the right of the United States up to that limit; 
whereas by a subsequent treaty with Great Britain in 
1825, expressed in much the same terms, the right to 
the same territory by Great Britain was also acknowl¬ 
edged. Even had it been inferred from our agreeing 
not to occupy any points north of 54 0 40', that we 
acknowledged the Russian right to the whole of the 
coast, it did not follow that the United States ever 
intended to abandon the right gained by the first 
article, as belonging to them under the law of nations, 
of frequenting the unoccupied parts of the coast for 
purposes of fishing or trading with the natives. 
Count Nesselrode, however, without attempting to 
controvert the arguments advanced by Mr. Forsyth 


304 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


and Mr. Dallas, refused to renew the fourth article of 
the convention. A similar refusal was made to Great 
Britain, whose rights had also lapsed in the year 1835. 
In 1839 the charter of the Russian-American Com¬ 
pany was renewed for twenty years, and in point of 
fact the vessels of the United States, as well as those 
of Great Britain, were excluded from the ports and 
harbors of the coast of Russian America from that 
date.* 

All questions that might possibly arise were fully 
settled by the treaty of March 30, 1867, negotiated by 
Mr. Seward, by which, for the sum of $7,200,000 in 
gold, the whole of the Russian possessions in Amer¬ 
ica, free and unencumbered by the privileges of any 
company, were ceded to the United States. 

One question, however, arose out of this treaty. 
Those Russian subjects who chose to remain after 
three years had the right of becoming Americans. 
They had churches and other establishments of the 
Russian Orthodox Church. In order to provide for 
their spiritual welfare the Russian Synod appointed 
an archbishop, with his seat at San Francisco. The 
American charge d’affaires, believing that the pre¬ 
cedent was of some importance, immediately gave 
notice of this appointment to his Government and 
suggested that some action be taken. The Secretary 
of State, however, gave him no instructions on the 
* Congressional Doc., Session 1838-39. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 305 

subject, and without them he did not feel authorized 
to protest. At the same time he felt that the case 
was very different from the appointment of bishops 
of the Catholic Church by the Pope. The Russian 
Synod is a part of the temporal institutions of the 
Russian empire, and a Russian bishop in America 
is paid by, and is an official of, the Russian govern¬ 
ment as distinguished from the Russian Church, and 
is yet allowed to exercise an authority in the United 
States without any control over him by the United 
States authorities, even a control such as is exercised 
over consular officers. 


20 


306 


A MERIC A N DIPL DMA C V. 


D.— THE SOUND DUES. 

Origin of these Dues. — Tariff of Christianople. — Clay. — 
Wheaton.—Webster’s Report.—Burden upon Trade.— 
Upshur’s Report.—Buchanan’s Instructions to Flenniken. 
—Our Proposition for Compensation.— Its Withdrawal by 
Mr. Marcy.—Our Notice to Terminate our Treaty.—Dan¬ 
ish Proposition for Capitalization.—President Pierce’s 
Message.—European Congress.—Treaty of Capitalization. 
—Our Separate Treaty. 

From an early time Denmark had claimed the right 
of imposing duties and marks of ceremonial respect 
on all merchant vessels passing through the Sound or 
the great Belts that connect the Baltic with the North 
Sea. We find mention of these dues as early as 1319, 
when they were to some extent regulated. Com¬ 
plaints of their exorbitant character were made at dif¬ 
ferent times, and by treaties and conventions they 
were lowered. They were finally regulated by the 
treaty of Christianople in 1645, explained by another 
treaty in 1701, and continued in that form up to the 
present century. The right to impose them was ta¬ 
citly admitted by all the commercial states of Europe. 

The tariff of duties imposed by the treaty of Chris¬ 
tianople was somewhat peculiar. The theory was that 
one per cent, of the value of all the articles was to be 
paid ; and a tariff was drawn up commuting these to 
specific duties on the chief articles of commerce based 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


307 


on the value at the time. In the lapse of two cen¬ 
turies not only had the actual value in money of ar¬ 
ticles of commerce decreased so that the specific du¬ 
ties represented three, four,, and five per cent, of their 
value, but many new articles of commerce were carried 
into the Baltic, the valuation of which was arbitrary. 
Countries, besides, were divided into privileged and 
non-privileged, the former meaning those who had 
made special treaties with Denmark : non-privileged 
nations paid duties a fifth higher. 

The income derived from the Sound dues was, 
owing to the large commerce of the Baltic, a very 
important branch of the Danish revenue, amounting to 
two and sometimes two and one-half millions of rix- 
dollars per annum. Fifty years ago our commerce on 
the Baltic, which was very little with Denmark itself, 
brought into use about one hundred vessels a year. 
As American vessels, having to cross the ocean, were 
of larger size than those of European nations, we paid 
higher duties in proportion to the number of vessels, 
averaging some years as much as $100,000. 

The attention of our Government was first appar¬ 
ently called to the subject in 1826, when Mr. Clay 
succeeded in negotiating a general treaty of friendship, 
commerce, and navigation with Denmark, by which 
vessels of the United States, in passing the Sound or 
the Belts, were not to pay higher duties than those 
paid by the most favored nation. Mr. Clay did not 


3°8 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


apparently question the prescriptive right of Den¬ 
mark to take these duties, and was satisfied to reduce 
them thus by a fifth of their amount. Mr. Wheaton, 
during his residence as minister in Denmark, from 
1827 to 1835, studied the history and the effects of 
the Sound dues ; and from his despatches Mr. Web¬ 
ster, soon after entering upon his office as Secretary 
of State, made a report to the President, with a view 
of beginning negotiations for a reduction of the duties ; 
for there was at that time a general movement on the 
part of the northern powers of Europe for the purpose 
of obtaining a modification, of the regulations of the 
Sound, which would remove certain grievances which 
were a great burden upon commerce. Apart from 
the Sound dues themselves, there were charges of 
light-money, pass-money, etc., which caused a delay 
at Elsinore, where vessels were obliged to stop for 
the purpose of paying the dues ; and, as their collec¬ 
tion was attended by vexatious delays and unneces¬ 
sary ceremonies, the port charges sometimes amounted 
to a large sum. Vessels bound to, or returning from, 
ports in the Baltic were obliged to lower their top¬ 
sails before the castle of Kronenberg in token of re¬ 
spect ; to submit to an examination of their cargoes 
at Elsinore ; frequently to encounter a delay arising 
from the limited number of hours during which the 
custom-house was open, which was tedious, and in 
that sea often dangerous. Mr. Webster says : 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


309 


“ The amount of our commerce with Denmark direct is in¬ 
considerable compared with our transactions with Sweden, 
Russia, and the ports of Prussia, and the Germanic associa¬ 
tion of the ports of the Baltic ; but the sum annually paid to 
that government in Sound dues, and the consequent port 
charges, by our vessels alone is estimated at something over 
one hundred thousand dollars. The great proportion of this 
amount is paid by the articles of tobacco, sugar, cotton, and 
rice, the first and last of these paying a duty of about three 
per cent, ad valorem, reckoning every value from the places 
from which they came. By a list published at Elsinore in 1840 
it appears that, between April and November of that year, 
seventy-two American vessels, a comparatively small number, 
lowered their top-sails before the castle of Kronenberg. These 
were all bound up the Sound to ports on the Baltic, with cargoes 
composed in part of the above-named products, upon which 
alone according to the tariff was paid a sum exceeding forty 
thousand dollars for these dues. Having disposed of these 
cargoes they returned laden with the usual productions of the 
countries on the Baltic, on which, in like manner, were paid 
duties on going out of the Sound, again acknowledging the trib¬ 
ute by an inconvenient and sometimes hazardous ceremony.’’ * 

At the time when Mr. Webster took up this sub¬ 
ject England, owing to the complaints of her mer¬ 
chants, was negotiating with Denmark, and eleven 
days after the date of Mr. Webster’s report an ar¬ 
rangement was made far more satisfactory to the com¬ 
mercial world. The specific duties imposed by the 
treaty of Christianople remained unchanged, but the 
tariff for non-enumerated articles was carefully revised 


* Report of May 24, 1841, Webster’s Works, vi., p. 406. 


3io 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C i \ 


and greatly reduced, although the system operated 
unequally. The tariff on raw sugar, for example, was 
reduced from nine to five stivers per one hundred 
pounds. But even this amounted to about two per 
cent, on the value of common sugar; and it was 
found upon examination that, owing to Russia, they 
equalized the duty upon all unrefined sugars, and only 
the better kinds of white Havana were sent up the 
Baltic, so that the commissioners had fixed upon a 
valuation which nearly doubled the proportion to be 
paid by the low-priced sugars. The rule requiring 
the lowering of the top-saijs, in token of respect, was 
abolished, important reductions were made in port 
charges, the hours of the custom-house were ex¬ 
tended, and the visitation of vessels dispensed with. 
Upon receiving information of the new tariff and regu¬ 
lations, Mr. Webster expressed satisfaction, and as far 
as he was concerned the correspondence closed. 

Not every one, however, was as satisfied as Mr. 
Webster. Prussia, especially, felt very much ag¬ 
grieved, and for a long time hesitated about accepting 
the new tariff, as the dues at the entrance of the 
Baltic were an obstacle to all Prussian commerce. 
The merchants of the sea-towns made strong repre¬ 
sentations to the government, and a vigorous effort was 
made for the capitalization or entire abolition of the 
duties. Owing, however, to the personal influence of 
the King of Denmark, and the influence upon Prussia 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS . 311 

from England and Denmark, Prussia in 1846 accepted 
the new tariff, and even did more. Following the 
example of Russia, it demanded attestations of having 
paid the duties at Elsinore before a ship was allowed 
to discharge its cargo. 

The hopes of the mercantile world now rested on 
the efforts of the United States. Mr. Upshur, who 
had succeeded Mr. Webster in 1843, made another 
communication to the President on the subject, in 
which he took stronger grounds. He said : 

“ Denmark continues to this day without any legal title to 
levy exceedingly strange duties on all goods passing the Sound. 
Denmark cannot lay claim to these duties upon any principle 
either of nature or of the law of nations, nor from any other 
reason than that of antiquated custom. It renders no service 
in consideration of that tax, and has not even such rights 
as the power to enforce it would give. Great and general is 
the discontent felt by all nations interested in the Baltic trade 
on account of that needless and humiliating tribute. For the 
United States the time has come when they can appropriately 
take decisive steps to free their Baltic trade of this pressured’ 

The report of Mr. Upshur created considerable ex¬ 
citement and consternation in Denmark, but his plans 
came to an end with the accident on the Princeton in 
which he lost his life. His successor, Mr. Calhoun, 
attempted nothing beyond the collection of informa¬ 
tion. 

Meanwhile every year the Chamber of Commerce 
of Stettin presented the subject again to the Prus- 


312 


A MERICA N DIPL OMA C 3 ' 


sian government as a canker on Prussian commerce ; 
and after the troubles between Prussia and Den¬ 
mark in consequence of the Slesvig-Holstein diffi¬ 
culties, as it appeared likely that in arranging the 
peace the Prussians might insist on the total ab¬ 
olition of the Sound dues, Mr. Buchanan, then 
Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Flenniken, our 
charge d’affaires, to negotiate for a new treaty of 
commerce, providing for exemption from the Sound 
dues—a perpetual exemption, if possible. As there 
would be considerable delay in obtaining an act of 
Congress giving notice of the termination of the ex¬ 
isting convention with Denmark, and there would be 
twelve months’ delay after giving such notice, while a 
new treaty, if made, would cut off the Sound dues two 
years earlier than could be done otherwise, Mr. Flen¬ 
niken was empowered to offer to the Danish govern¬ 
ment, $250,000 as an indemnity for the amount which 
would thus be lost, provided that the exemption 
from the Sound dues should be made perpetual. 
This proposition, which was expressly stated to be 
not for the purchase of a right enjoyed by Denmark, 
but as an equitable equivalent for that branch of her 
revenue which she would thus give up, and mainly to 
furnish a liberal precedent on the part of the Govern¬ 
ment, which was strictly under no obligations to pay, 
in order that Denmark might be enabled to settle 
profitably with European nations, who were, in fact, 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


313 


under obligations to submit, was received with satis¬ 
faction by the Danish ministry. The resumption of 
hostilities with Germany, however, broke off the ne¬ 
gotiations. 

Mr. Marcy, on July 18, 1853, instructed the new 
charge d’affaires, Mr. Beddinger, to press the matter 
of the Sound dues to a conclusion ; and in his de¬ 
spatch, after giving an account of the history of the 
Sound dues, took the decisive stand that the United 
States can recognize no immemorial usage as obliga¬ 
tory when it conflicts with natural privileges and in¬ 
ternational law. The previous offer for payment was 
withdrawn, and the Secretary declined authorizing 
the offer to Denmark of any compensation for the re¬ 
moval of that as a favor which we had demanded as 
a right. There was great delay at Copenhagen, 
partly on account of the general state of European 
politics, and partly, in the opinion of our legation 
as well as of the Prussian mercantile bodies, through 
the influence of Russia, who desired to keep in the 
hands of Denmark the power of closing the Baltic in 
case of need. In March, 1854, the Danish govern¬ 
ment intimated that they would make an effort to 
enter into an arrangement with all the powers for the 
abolition of the Sound tolls, upon receiving a certain 
compensation. But nothing was done until Presi¬ 
dent Pierce, in his annual message of December 4, 
1854, recommended to Congress that notice should 


3H 


A ME RICA iV DIPL DMA C Y. 


be given for terminating the convention of 1826. 
The Danish legation at Washington immediately pre¬ 
sented a statement of what the Danes considered the 
proper nature of the right they claimed. The sub¬ 
stance was, that the right of Denmark to the Sound 
dues is a right existing under the laws of nature by 
immemorial prescription, and therefore independent 
of all treaties ; that the abrogation of the convention 
of 1816 would, therefore, not restore any rights to the 
United States, or take any from Denmark. As the 
Danish government steadily refused to listen to any 
proposition for the abolition of the dues without an 
equivalent, and as the United States as steadily re¬ 
fused to offer any bribes for that which was clearly 
our right, notice was given, April 14, 1855, that after 
the expiration of a year the convention would be 
terminated. 

Finding herself thus hardly pressed—for the action 
of the United States found sympathy in the whole 
commercial world—Denmark, in October, 1855, sug¬ 
gested a project of capitalizing the Sound dues, pro¬ 
posing that the quota to be paid by each nation 
should be estimated by the quantity of merchandise 
passing through the Sound and Belts, as far as the 
Sound dues proper were concerned ; and by the num¬ 
ber of vessels to each flag, as regards the light-money 
and similar duties. Two conditions were made : 1, 
That this arrangement should be concurred in simul- 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


315 


taneously by all the powers interested; and 2, that 
the affair in question should be treated not as a com¬ 
mercial or money transaction, but as a political mat¬ 
ter. This last condition was sufficient to make the 
United States decline to take any part in this Euro¬ 
pean convention. The cogent reasons, as stated by 
President Pierce, in his message of December, 1855, 
were as follows: 

i( One is that Denmark does not offer to submit to the con¬ 
vention the question of her right to levy the Sound dues ; and, 
the second is, that if the convention were allowed to take cog¬ 
nizance of that particular question, still it would not be com¬ 
petent to deal with the immediate and important international 
principle involved, which affects rights in other cases of navi¬ 
gation and commercial freedom, as well as that of access to the 
Baltic. Above all, by the express terms of the proposition, it 
is contemplated that the consideration of the Sound dues shall 
be commingled with, and made subordinate to a matter wholly 
extraneous—the balance of power among the governments of 
Europe. While, however, rejecting this proposition, and in¬ 
sisting on the right of free transit into and from the Baltic, I 
have expressed to Denmark a willingness on the part of the 
United States to share liberally with other powers in compen¬ 
sating her for any advantages which commerce shall hereafter 
derive from expenditures made by her for the improvement 
and safety of the navigation of the Sound or Belts.” 

The European Congress, nevertheless, met at Co¬ 
penhagen in the winter of 1856, and its result was the 
treaty of March 14, 1857, by which the Sound dues 
were forever abolished, in consideration of a payment 


316 


, 1 ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


once for all of 35,000,000 rix-dollars. In fixing this 
sum the Danes had reduced their claims, setting the 
annual income at 1,750,000 instead of 2,250,000 rix- 
dollars, which it had produced for many years. 
Twenty years’ purchase gave 25,000,000 rix-dollars. 
The proportion of England was more than one-third 
of the whole; that of the United States was 2,100,- 
000 rix-dollars, or $1,050,000. 

The United States, for reasons already given, re¬ 
fused to become a party to this treaty, and subse¬ 
quently, on April 11, 1857, made a similar treaty, by 
which 717,829 rix-dQllars, or $393,011 United States 
currency, were paid to Denmark, in consideration of 
an agreement to keep up lights, buoys, and pilot es¬ 
tablishments in those waters, and of the total and per¬ 
petual abolition of all dues on American vessels.* 

* The official correspondence is found in H. R. Ex. Doc., 
No. 108, 33d Congress, 1st Session, and Senate Ex. Doc., No. 
28, 35th Congress, 1st Session. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


3*7 


£.-THE BOSPHORUS AND THE DARDANELLES. 

When the whole of the shores of the Black Sea 
were in the exclusive possession of Turkey, that sea 
was entirely closed even to the commercial vessels of 
foreign powers. When Peter the Great, in 1700, at¬ 
tempted to obtain the right for his merchant vessels 
to trade on the Black Sea, the reply of the Turks 
was : 

“ The Ottoman Porte guards the Black Sea like a pure and 
undefiled virgin which no one dares to touch ; and the Sultan 
would sooner permit outsiders to enter his harem than consent 
to the sailing of foreign vessels on the Black Sea. This can 
only be done when the Turkish empire shall have been turned 
upside down.” * 

When this process was accomplished to such an ex¬ 
tent that the Russians had made large acquisitions 
on its shores, they had, according to the common law 
of European nations, a right to navigate the Black 
Sea and pass outward into the Mediterranean. But 
the Turks at this time recognized no principles of 
international law in common with Europe, and the 
right could be only obtained by the express stipula¬ 
tions of treaties. The first of these stipulating for the 
free navigation of the straits by merchant vessels was 
made with Russia in 1774, followed by one with 


* Schuyler, Peter the Great, i., p. 362. 


318 


A MERl CA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


Austria in 1784, with Great Britain in 1799, with 
France in 1802, and with Prussia in 1806. The 
United States had no treaty rights on this subject 
until 1830, when they were given 

“ The liberty to pass the canal of the imperial residence, and 
go and come in the Black Sea in like manner as vessels of the 
most favored nations.” 

And the treaty of 1862 provided that clearance re¬ 
quired for the passage of an American vessel should 
be delivered with the least possible delay. By the 
treaty of Paris in 1856, as modified by the treaty of 
London in 1871, the Black Sea was thrown open to 
merchant vessels of all nations ; but the straits are 
closed to ships of war, except that the Sultan has the 
faculty of opening them in time of peace to the war 
vessels of friendly and allied powers in case he deems 
it necessary for carrying out the stipulations of the 
treaty of Paris. The United States have never ad¬ 
hered to either of these treaties, and have always 
maintained that their right to send ships of war into 
the Black Sea cannot be legally taken from them by 
any arrangement concluded by European powers to 
which they are not parties. No attempt, however, 
has ever been made to exercise these rights. All 
American ships of war have, while reserving all ques¬ 
tion of right, asked permission of the Porte to pass 
the Dardanelles. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


319 


/'■.—THE RIVER PLATE. 

River Systems of South America.—European Intervention at 
Buenos Ayres.—Decree of Urquiza.—Treaty of San Jose 
de Flores.—Difficulties.—Solution of Mr. Schenck.—Op¬ 
position of Brazil.—The Water Witch.—Trouble with 
Paraguay. 

Civilization in South America is, to a certain ex¬ 
tent, dependent upon the river systems, and by the 
two great rivers, the Amazon and the river Plate (La 
Plata) access is gained to the whole interior of the 
continent. The foreign relations of a state like Para¬ 
guay are entirely dependent upon the freedom of river 
navigation, for it has no access to the ocean except 
by the rivers Paraguay and La Plata. Although Bo¬ 
livia has a small extent of sea-coast and one port— 
Cobija—for commercial purposes it can be more easily 
reached by the Madeira, a branch of the Amazon, or 
the Pilcomayo, a branch of the Paraguay. Through 
the Amazon also there is access to the eastern parts 
of Peru, Ecuador, and New Grenada, and even dur¬ 
ing the rainy season to portions of Venezuela. 

The attainment of the independence of the various 
states of South America was followed by intestine 
struggles, and during these the government of Buenos 
Ayres, basing its action on a treaty concluded in 1825, 
between the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata and 


320 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


Great Britain, claimed the right of opening or shut¬ 
ting at pleasure the river La Plata, and thus cutting 
off the access of Paraguay and of the interior prov¬ 
inces to the sea. England and France vainly strove 
to bring over General Rosas to more liberal views 
with regard to river navigation ; but he held firm. 
When a joint intervention was proposed in 1845 by 
England and France in the affairs of La Plata, Guizot 
wrote : 

“We must ask as an accessory and consequence of our in¬ 
tervention, the application of the principles established by the 
Congress at Vienna for the free navigation of rivers in relation 
to those which, flowing from the frontiers of Brazil and Para¬ 
guay, throw themselves into the Atlantic.” 

England, however, on November 24, 1849, signed a 
treaty with Rosas in its own interest, which recognized 
the navigation of the Parana as being purely internal. 
A similar treaty made by France was rejected by the 
National Assembly. The closing of water communi¬ 
cations, together with the struggle at Montevideo, 
finally wearied the patience of the interior states, 
and General Urquiza, the governor of the state of 
Entre Rios, in conjunction with the Brazilian gov¬ 
ernment, first defeated General Oribe before Monte¬ 
video, and subsequently broke the power of Rosas. 
By one of the five treaties which Urquiza made witlA 
Brazil on October 12 and 13, 1851, the navigation of 
the Uruguay and its branches was declared common 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 321 

to the contracting states, and the other riparian states 
of La Plata were invited to agree to a similar arrange¬ 
ment, so as to make free the navigation of the Parana 
and the Paraguay. One of the first measures of 
Urquiza, after the defeat of Rosas and his own elec¬ 
tion as provisional director of the Argentine Con¬ 
federation, was a decree of August 28, 1852, declaring 
the navigation of the rivers in the Confederation free 
to all flags. 

The United States was the first country to avail 
itself of these new privileges, and immediately fitted 
out the steamer Water Witch, under the command 
of Lieutenant Thomas Jefferson Page, to explore and 
survey all the rivers emptying into La Plata. At the 
same time Mr. Robert C. Schenck, our minister at 
Rio de Janeiro, was instructed to go to Buenos Ayres, 
and together with Mr. John S. Pendleton, our charge 
d’affaires there, to conclude all necessary treaties re¬ 
quired by our commercial interests, and for the open¬ 
ings of the rivers. Before his arrival, Mr. Pendleton 
had already gone up to Asuncion and concluded a 
commercial treaty with Paraguay, on March 4, 1853, 
which provided also for the free navigation of the 
river Paraguay as far as the dominions of the empire 
of Brazil, and of the right side of the Parana through¬ 
out all its course belonging to the republic. 

The English at the same time had empowered Sir 
Charles Hotham, and the French their minister at 


21 


322 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


Rio de Janeiro, the Chevalier St. Georges, to negoti¬ 
ate similar treaties for free navigation with the Ar¬ 
gentine Confederation. As the object of the three 
governments was exactly the same, the plenipoten¬ 
tiaries agreed to work together, and the main burden 
of the negotiation was entrusted to Mr. Schenck. 
Buenos Ayres, where the plenipotentiaries lived, was 
in a state of close siege and blockade, the province of 
Buenos Ayres having expressed an intention of seced¬ 
ing from the Confederation, and having refused to re¬ 
cognize the authority of General Urquiza. It was 
necessary for the plenipotentiaries to go backward 
and forward between the city and the camp of Ur¬ 
quiza under escort. They endeavored in vain to 
mediate between the contending parties, and finally, 
when the squadron of the Confederation was treach¬ 
erously surrendered to the government of Buenos 
Ayres, General Urquiza retired, and the plenipoten¬ 
tiaries followed him to his camp at San Jose de Flores, 
where separate but identical treaties, providing for 
the perpetual free navigation of the rivers Parana and 
Uruguay were signed on July io, 1853. At the last 
moment two difficulties arose—one with regard to 
the little island of Martin Garcia, which was in a 
position, if held by Buenos Ayres, to impede free 
navigation, and of which Urquiza desired the nego¬ 
tiating countries to guarantee the possession to the 
Argentine Confederation. Mr. Schenck, at least, did 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


323 


not feel authorized to give the guarantee of the 
United States, and finally it was agreed to insert a 
clause that the contracting parties should “ agree to 
use their influence to prevent the possession of the 
said island from being retained or held by any state 
of the river Plate or its confluents which shall not 
have given its adhesion to the principle of their free 
navigation.” This influence might be greater or less, 
according to circumstances, and it was never actually 
necessary to use force. The other point was a con¬ 
stitutional one. The constitution of the Argentine 
Confederation had been modelled after that of the 
United States, which in many places it had copied 
word for word. A special article, however, had been 
inserted, that the navigation of the interior rivers of 
the Confederation could be made free to all the world, 
subject only to regulations to be established by the 
national authority. It was suggested that the pro¬ 
posed treaties would be in conflict with this article of 
the constitution. As the whole subject had been 
removed from the treaty-making power, and left only 
within the jurisdiction of Congress, it was claimed 
that the legislative power was the only national au¬ 
thority that could prescribe the needed regulations for 
such free navigation. The plenipotentiaries at first 
thought their case hopeless; but Mr. Schenck suc¬ 
ceeded in satisfying General Urquiza that the proper 
interpretation of the constitution was that treaties, 


324 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


regularly concluded either by the provisional Execu¬ 
tive or made by the President and approved by Con¬ 
gress after the organization under the constitution, 
were to be taken, as in the United States, as “ the 
supreme law of the land,” and that “ regulations ” es¬ 
tablished by treaty must be considered as much sanc¬ 
tioned by “ national authority ” as if enacted in the 
shape of statute law. * 

After the treaty had been signed and ratified by 
General Urquiza, the province of Buenos Ayres made 
a protest, declaring that the treaty was not binding 
upon her, for she had refused to be represented at the 
Constituent Congress, and was therefore, to all intents 
and purposes, an independent state. Considering, 
however, that Urquiza was the legal representative of 
the other thirteen provinces of the Argentine Con¬ 
federation, the powers thought best to disregard this 
protest of Buenos Ayres, leaving her to acknowledge 
the treaty in the future, or to make new treaties with 
them to the same effect. The only reply made was 
the ratification of the treaty by the United States, 
Great Britain, and France. The Brazilian govern¬ 
ment, whose aim it was to keep the navigation of 
these rivers solely to the riparian states, also objected, 
and the Brazilian minister in Washington presented 
to our Government a protest, dated November 7, 

* Despatch of Mr. Schenck ; see La Plata, the Argentine 
Confederation, and Paraguay, by T. J. Page, p. 575. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


325 


1853, against the treaties made with Urquiza, on the 
ground that “they may prove detrimental to the 
rights which Brazil possesses as a sovereign nation.” 
Mr. Marcy replied to this by a note of December 
16th, in which he disclaimed any intention on the 
part of the United States of violating any rights of 
Brazil, but so long as no actual infringement was 
proved, and merely its possibility suggested, refused 
to take the protest into account. 

Meanwhile the steamer Water Witch, which had 
been of much service during the negotiations, con¬ 
tinued its explorations and made careful surveys of a 
great part of the river system. Lopez, the President 
of Paraguay, at first objected very much to allowing, 
even for scientific purposes, a war vessel to navigate 
the Paraguayan rivers, on the ground that Brazil 
might demand the same favor, and until a treaty of 
limits had been made with that country it might 
prove a dangerous precedent. He, however, finally 
yielded, and even the Brazilian government, owing to 
the representations of Mr. Schenck and his successor, 
Mr. Trousdale, allowed the expedition to enter the 
Brazilian portion of the Paraguay. 

A series of unfortunate incidents now occurred 
which prevented the final ratification of the treaty 
with Paraguay, and brought that country into hostile 
relations with the United States. Our Government 
had appointed as consul at Paraguay Mr. Edward A. 


326 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


Hopkins, who had, in pursuance of a mistaken policy, 
been allowed to engage in business on his own ac¬ 
count. He was a man somewhat visionary, and filled 
with chimerical ideas, and seemed to aim at acquiring 
a predominating influence in the Plate country. He 
used his position as consul not only to carry out 
these projects, but to assist him in his commercial 
enterprises. Besides cigar-factories and other enter¬ 
prises, he had started a steamer company, of which 
he called himself the agent general. He had, in 
various ways made himself obnoxious to President 
Lopez, who, under <a republican name, possessed ab¬ 
solute power, and their relations were already strained, 
when an insult offered to the consul’s brother by 
some soldier, who was driving cattle, brought both 
parties to such extremities that, although satisfaction 
was given for the insult, Hopkins’ exequatur was with¬ 
drawn, and he, as well as the other Americans en¬ 
gaged in business at Asuncion, was obliged to leave 
the country. Just at that time the treaty made with 
the United States was sent to Lieutenant Page for the 
exchange of ratifications. It had been so carelessly 
drawn, through the negligence of Mr. Pendleton, that 
the Senate had found it necessary to make thirty-two 
amendments, most of which were merely formal ones; 
for in few places was even the name of our Govern¬ 
ment given correctly. The English clerk who had 
drawn up the treaty had styled our Government at 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


327 


one -time the “ United States of North America,” at 
another the “ North American Union,” etc. Lopez, 
in his bitterness against Americans and foreigners in 
general, made the amendments of the Senate a pre¬ 
text for refusing to ratify the treaty in its new form. 
He had ratified it once and that was enough. The 
notes of Lieutenant Page were returned to him with¬ 
out an answer, except that the President did not read 
English and could not understand them without an 
official translation. Page, who was hot-headed, lost 
his temper, and insisted on writing again in English. 
This the Minister of Foreign Affairs chose to con¬ 
sider as an insult, and Page was obliged to retire. 

Soon after this, in October, 1854, a decree was is¬ 
sued prohibiting foreign vessels of war from navigat¬ 
ing the rivers of Paraguay—a decree which especially 
aimed at the explorations of the Water Witch. Page 
therefore continued his explorations within the lim¬ 
its of the Argentine Confederation; but in descending 
the river Parana, which was common to the two coun¬ 
tries, he got aground, and subsequently, in passing 
closely under the guns of a Paraguayan fort, the vessel 
was fired into and the helmsman was killed. This was 
on February 1, 1855. Our Government at first took no 
action in the matter, except to send Mr. Richard Fitz¬ 
patrick as a special commissioner to exchange the 
ratifications of the treaty. Mr. Fitzpatrick arrived in 
November, 1856, but Paraguay again refused to ratify 


328 


A ME RICA i\ T DIPL OMA C Y. 


until the pending questions were settled—not only 
that of the insult which Lopez claimed to have re¬ 
ceived from Lieutenant Page of the Water Witch, but 
also for the reclamations which had been made on the 
part of the steamer company of Mr. Hopkins. The 
matter was thereupon brought to the attention of 
Congress, and on June 2, 1858, the President was 
authorized to take such action as he deemed neces¬ 
sary. A commissioner was again sent to Paraguay, 
and a considerable naval force—of nineteen vessels, 

carrying two hundred guns and twenty-five hundred 

\ 

men—was despatched to the river La Plata. This 
show of force had its effect. Our commissioner, Mr. 
James B. Bowlin, arrived at Asuncion on January 25, 
1859, and by February 4th succeeded in concluding 
two treaties—one for the settlement of claims, and 
the other of commerce and navigation, being an al¬ 
most exact copy of the original treaty of 1853. These 
treaties were afterward duly ratified by both sides, 
and the question was finally settled.* 

* The history of this episode may be found in part in the 
book of Lieutenant Page, cited above ; in the Annuaire de la 
Revue des deux Mondes , 1853-59 ; and in the Messages of 
President Buchanan, of December 8, 1857, and December 19, 
1859, with the accompanying documents. 


FREE NAVIGATION OE RIVERS. 


329 


G.— THE AMAZON. 

Our Treaty with Peru of 1851.—Brazilian Intrigues.—Mr. 
Randolph Clay’s Negotiations.—Bolivian Decree.—Peru¬ 
vian River Ports Opened.—Intrigues at Lima.—England 
and France.—Mr. Marcy’s Reply to the Brazilian Min¬ 
ister.—His Instructions to Mr. Trousdale.—President 
Pierce’s Message.—Peru Changes Face and Accepts Bra¬ 
zilian Doctrines.—Abrogation of Treaty with Peru.— 
Treaty with Bolivia.—Trousdale at Rio Janeiro.—Brazil¬ 
ian Decree of 1866, Opening the Amazon.—Peruvian De¬ 
cree. 

On July 26, 1851, Mr. J. Randolph Clay, our min¬ 
ister at Lima, concluded a treaty of friendship, com¬ 
merce, and navigation between the United States and 
Peru, which was duly ratified on both sides. Three 
previous treaties of a similar nature had been con¬ 
cluded, and had been approved by the Senate of the 
United States and ratified by the President, but had 
all been rejected by the Peruvian Congress. By this 
treaty Peru agreed to grant to no other nation favors, 
privileges, or immunities which should not immedi¬ 
ately be extended to citizens of the United States ; 
and agreed also that citizens of the United States es¬ 
tablishing lines of steam-vessels between the different 
ports of entry within the Peruvian territories should 
have all the privileges and favors enjoyed by any 
other association or company whatever. 

Already, before the treaty had been made, Lieuten- 


330 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


ants Herndon and Gibbon, of the United States Navy, 
had been sent to Peru with instructions to explore 
the Amazon and its different branches to the mouth, 
for the purpose of ascertaining its navigability and its 
use for commerce. As soon as this expedition was 
known at Rio de Janeiro, the Chevalier Da Ponte 
Ribeyro was sent to Peru and Bolivia in order to 
negotiate treaties for the navigation of the Amazon, 
“ by which the citizens of the United States should be 
excluded from all participation in the navigation of 
the Amazon and in the trade of the interior of South 
America.” A treaty was signed between Peru and 
Brazil on October 23, 1851 ; and it was agreed by 
article second that the navigation of the Amazon 
“should belong exclusively to the respective states 
owning its banks.” It was agreed also that if a Bra¬ 
zilian company of steam navigation were started, Peru 
would assist it with a yearly subsidy. During the 
negotiations Mr. Clay had conversations with Mr. 
Osma, the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, who 
stated that the treaty was only one of limits, and 
would stipulate nothing for navigation. The min¬ 
istry had changed, and after the signature of the 
treaty Mr. Clay complained to Mr. Tirado, the Min¬ 
ister of Foreign Affairs, who showed a willingness to 
evade the actual provisions of the treaty, and pro¬ 
posed to declare several Peruvian towns—Nauta, Lo¬ 
reto, and others on the branches of the Amazon, as 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


331 


ports of entry—so as to afford the United States 
plausible grounds to claim the navigation of the Am¬ 
azon. Mr. Clay bestirred himself to preserve our 
rights, and as we had no representative in Bolivia, 
he wrote to Lieutenant Herndon, who was still there, 
and succeeded in frustrating the designs of the Bra¬ 
zilian minister, who had been empowered also to 
conclude a treaty with that country. Subsequently, 
on January 27, 1853, Bolivia opened freely to the 
navigation of all the world the rivers and navigable 
waters flowing through Bolivian territory, and emp¬ 
tying into the Paraguay or the Amazon, and besides 
this, offered $10,000 for the first steam-vessel which 
should arrive from the sea at any Bolivian river port. 
In 1852 the Brazilian government gave an exclusive 
right of steam navigation on the Amazon to the Bra¬ 
zilian Company of Souza. Mr. Clay thereupon called 
the attention of the Peruvian government to this 
fact, and also to the decree of Bolivia opening her 
rivers, and claimed the equal rights granted by our 
treaty. He endeavored also to secure action by the 
governments of Ecuador and New Grenada. The 
Peruvian consul at Rio de Janeiro had made an agree¬ 
ment between Peru and the Souza company, just 
mentioned, in November, 1852, and this was finally 
approved by the President of Peru, with the omission 
of certain articles which were considered objection¬ 
able. Shortly after that, in April, 1853, in all prob- 


332 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C V. 


ability owing to the efforts of Mr. Clay, the towns of 
Loreto and Nauta were made ports of entry, and the 
privileges given to Brazil were extended to all the 
most favored nations. Two steamers at the same 
time were ordered by the Peruvian government from 
an American, to be delivered at Loreto. Mr. Caval¬ 
canti, the Brazilian minister, protested against this 
decree, and Mr. Lisboa was sent out by Brazil to 
New Grenada, Ecuador, and Venezuela for the pur¬ 
pose of making treaties to close the Amazon to the 
United States. The great argument used was that 
“ the navigation of {he Amazon belonged of right ex¬ 
clusively to the nations owning its banks,” and in 
support of this it was constantly brought up, “ that if 
citizens of the United States were allowed once to 
establish themselves, either for purposes of trade or 
abode, in the interior of South America, they would 
inevitably introduce their own institutions and re¬ 
nounce the allegiance of their adopted country.” 

There was an idea prevalent throughout South 
America at that time that the United States were 
bent on annexation. Our filibustering expeditions to 
Cuba and to Central America, and the bombardment 
of Greytown, had greatly impressed all South Amer¬ 
ica. It was thought that if our citizens once estab¬ 
lished themselves there, they would introduce free 
principles, insist on governing themselves, and finally 
declare their independence and their annexation to 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


333 


the United States. Mr. Clay did his best, by private 
letters and by personal intercourse with the ministers 
of the other South American republics, to counteract 
the efforts of Brazil, and was in a measure successful. 
He persuaded the Peruvian minister to send a circular 
letter to Brazil, New Grenada, Ecuador, and Venezuela 
on July 13, 1853, inviting them to treat about the 
opening of the Amazon. Bolivia was not invited, al¬ 
though it had an equal interest with the others, be¬ 
cause that country was then at war with Peru. In 
this circular Mr. Tirado said : 

u The government believes that, considering the ideas of the 
time, the exigencies of commerce, and of the diplomacy of 
the world, as well as the necessity of not impeding the evident 
destiny of these territories and rivers, the most thorough ex¬ 
ploration of them and the adoption of a commercial policy 
which shall reconcile the interests of the world with the inter¬ 
ests and rights of the nations in possession, are matters which 
these last cannot defer.” 

The Peruvian Congress was about to meet at that 
time, and Mr. Cavalcanti, the Brazilian minister, tried 
hard to persuade its members to disapprove of the de¬ 
cree of April 15th. He even published a pamphlet, 
expressed in violent terms, attributing to the United 
States views of annexation as the reasons for which 
they desired to have the Amazon opened to them. 
Mr. Clay replied, through a friend, with another 
pamphlet, and then published a Spanish translation, 
with additions and notes, of Lieutenant Maury’s 


334 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


pamphlet on the Amazon and the Atlantic slope of 
South America, which was circulated not only through 
Peru, but also through the other republics of the 
Pacific coast. This had a very good effect, and the 
Peruvian Congress appropriated over half a million 
dollars to carry out the decree of April 15th opening 
the rivers, as well as to pay the Brazilian Company the 
$20,000 arranged by the treaty of 1851, without taking 
any actual vote on the decree itself. The first Brazil¬ 
ian steamer of the Souza Company arrived at the port 
of Loreto on October 6, 1853, and went further up to 
Nauta. Its captain had the order to hoist the Peru¬ 
vian flag on reaching the Peruvian boundary, so as to 
afford no pretext to other nations. 

The representatives of England and France were 
ordered to follow in the wake of the United States, 
and Mr. Sulivan, the British charge d’affaires, on Oc¬ 
tober 25, 1853, demanded the same rights on the 
Amazon as might be granted to the United States, 
Brazil, or others, under the treaty with Great Britain 
of April 10, 1850. He stated at the same time that 
“ the British minister at Rio de Janeiro had been in¬ 
structed to impress upon the Brazilian government the 
good policy of doing away with all restrictions and 
getting rid of all monopolies affecting the commerce 
of that river.” There was, however, a difficulty in the 
way of both England and France. England did not 
wish to claim separately the navigation of the Ama- 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


335 


zon, lest it might be considered by the United States 
as a precedent with regard to the St. Lawrence, and 
France was bound by the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth 
articles of the treaty of Utrecht, by which she had re¬ 
nounced all rights to the navigation of the Amazon, 
and by which she had even agreed that the inhabit¬ 
ants of Cayenne should be prevented from carrying 
on commerce in the Marawon, and the mouths of the 
Amazon. 

Mr. Lisboa, the Brazilian envoy, had succeeded in 
concluding a treaty with New Grenada, similar to 
that with Peru, and it became Mr. Clay’s duty to do 
what he could to prevent it from being ratified. In 
Ecuador he had more success, as letters and pamph¬ 
lets had produced an impression, and on November 
26, 1853, that government declared the freedom to all 
nations of the navigation of the Amazon and of its 
branches within the territory of Ecuador. 

Meanwhile Brazil was very uneasy. On April 4, 
1853, Mr. Carvalho Moreira, the Brazilian minister 
at Washington, made inquiry of Mr. Marcy about 
rumored expeditions of naval and commercial ships 
to the Amazon, enclosing newspaper paragraphs on 
the subject. Mr. Marcy, in his reply of April 20th, 
seemed to think that the minister’s apprehensions had 
arisen from accounts of the recent scientific expedi¬ 
tion on the Amazon, which he explained, and ex¬ 
plained also that Lieutenants Herndon and Gibbon 


336 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


had gone with passports, and under the authority 
granted by his predecessor, Mr. Macedo. In August 
the Brazilian minister made further inquiries, and 
enclosed a newspaper paragraph, saying that Lieuten¬ 
ant Porter of the navy had received two years’ leave 
of absence, for the purpose of taking charge of an ex¬ 
pedition intending to force a passage of the mouths 
of the Amazon. Mr. Marcy, in writing on Septem¬ 
ber 22, 1853, again denied any purpose of using force, 
and showed, by a letter from the Secretary of the 
Navy, that Lieutenant Porter had not received any 
leave of absence. Admitting at the same time that 
citizens of the United States must have seen the great 
advantages which the navigation of the Amazon 
would bring them, he added that he 

“ Permitted himself to entertain the hope that the Brazilian 
government, actuated by an enlightened regard for the in¬ 
terests of the empire, will strive by all proper means to de¬ 
velop its vast resources. It appears to the undersigned that 
no means would be more certain to lead to this result than the 
removal of unnecessary restrictions upon the navigation of the 
Amazon, and especially to the passage of vessels of the United 
States to and from the territories of Bolivia and Peru, by the 
way of that river and its tributaries. It is hoped that by 
means of treaty stipulations those advantages may be ob¬ 
tained for citizens of the United States.” 

Mr. Moreira was still suspicious, and at the end 
of November sent more newspaper paragraphs and 
wished more exact instructions to be given to the 


FREE NAVIGATION OF FI PEES. 


337 


Collector of New \ ork to prevent the fitting out of 
any filibustering expeditions. This Mr. Marcy con¬ 
sented to. 

In the instructions which had been given to Mr. 
Trousdale, who had succeeded Mr. Schenck as min¬ 
ister at Rio de Janeiro, dated August 8, 1853, he 
was ordered to claim the right of passage, for citizens 
of the United States, through the Amazon, for legiti¬ 
mate commerce with the republics of Bolivia, Peru, 
Ecuador, New Grenada, and Venezuela. Mr. Marcy 
used almost a threat, for he said : 

“ Should you discover any reluctance on the part of the gov¬ 
ernment of Brazil to yield to this just claim, you will impress 
upon it the determination of the United States to secure it for 
their citizens. The President is desirous to cultivate the most 
amicable relations with that government, and would much 
regret to have these relations disturbed by its persistence in a 
policy so much at variance with all the liberal views of civil¬ 
ized and enterprising nations.” 

An argument was then drawn from natural rights, 
and especially from the action of the Congress of 
Vienna in 1815. 

So earnest was our Government on this subject that 
President Pierce, in his annual message of December 
5, 1853, said : 

11 Considering the vast regions of this continent, and the 
number of states which would be made accessible by the free 
navigation of the river Amazon, particular attention has been 
given to this subject. Brazil, through whose territories it passes 


338 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


into the ocean, has hitherto persisted in a policy so restrictive, 
in regard to the use of this river, as to obstruct and nearly ex¬ 
clude foreign commercial intercourse with the states which lie 
upon its tributaries and upper branches. Our minister to that 
country is instructed to obtain a relaxation of that policy, and 
to use his efforts to induce the Brazilian government to open 
to common use, under proper safeguards, this great natural 
highway for international trade. Several of the South Amer¬ 
ican states are deeply interested in this attempt to secure the 
free navigation of the Amazon, and it is reasonable to expect 
their co-operation in the measure. As the advantages of free 
commercial intercourse among nations are better understood, 
more liberal views are generally entertained as to the common 
rights of all to the free use of those means which nature has 
provided for international communication. To these more 
liberal and enlightened views it is hoped that Brazil will con¬ 
form her policy, and remove all unnecessary restrictions upon 
the free use of a river which traverses so many states and so 
large a part of the continent.” 

To return to Peru, we find that in January Mr. 
Paz-Soldan, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
whose appointment was considered almost an act of 
hostility to the United States, had begun to waver 
on the Amazon question; for the Brazilian minister 
had declared that, if the decree of April 15th were en¬ 
forced in its entirety, the treaty with Brazil would be 
annulled. He had also informed the Peruvian gov¬ 
ernment that the Brazilian minister at Washington 
had written to him that Mr. Marcy fully sympathized 
with Brazil in this matter, and was ready to disavow 
Mr. Clay—a statement which our minister was able to 



FREE NA VIGA T1 ON OE RIVERS. 339 

denounce at once as a falsehood. It having been al¬ 
lowed to the Brazilian steamers to proceed further 
than Nauta up the river Huallaga, Mr. Clay, on De¬ 
cember 31, 1853, had asked if this were true, as he 
should then claim the same rights for the United 
States. Mr. Paz-Soldan replied on January 18, 1854, 
and used specious arguments to prove that the conces¬ 
sions granted to Brazil could not be claimed by the 
United States, as their treaty referred only to coast 
and not to river navigation, and as the United States 
nowhere possessed any part of the banks of the Ama¬ 
zon, they could not offer the same equivalent as Brazil 
did. This was accompanied by the decree of January 
4, 1854, amending the decree of April 15th, and giv¬ 
ing rights on the Amazon to Brazilian subjects only, 
but stating that 

“ If other states pretend that their subjects and vessels should 
be admitted to the Amazon and its confluents belonging to the 
territory of Peru, because they believe they have the right to it 
by virtue of treaties concluded with the republic, the govern¬ 
ment will proceed to grant or deny the demands addressed to 
it, according to the stipulations of existing treaties, or in the 
manner and under the conditions which may be deemed most 
fit and convenient.” 

In explaining this decree, he said that the decree of 
April 15th had been only administrative, and did not 
bind Peru to foreign nations except so far as conform¬ 
able to treaties. Mr. Clay, in his replies of February 


340 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C 1 ' 


4th and February i6th declined any controversy, as 
our rights were abundantly fixed by treaties, by the 
decree of April 15th, and by his various conversations 
with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and protested 
energetically on the part of the United States in case 
it was intended to deprive our citizens of any rights. 
In reporting his proceedings to his Government, Mr. 
Clay thought that the United States should use a 
tone of decision and energetic remonstrance if they 
wished to maintain their rights. Various other things 
had occurred at this time, at the Chincha Islands and 
elsewhere, which 'were contrary to the treaty, and 
doubtless a show of force would have brought Peru to 
reason. Matters, however, remained in this state 
until July, 1856, when, at a new session of the Peru¬ 
vian Congress, Mr. Clay persuaded several of the 
deputies to introduce a bill providing for the freedom 
of coasts and rivers. Owing partly to the apathy of 
the overworked Congress and partly through the in¬ 
opportune arrival of Mr. Lisboa as Brazilian minister 
(the same who had made a tour three years before in¬ 
citing the Pacific republics against the United States), 
this bill did not pass, and matters remained in that 
state until 1862, when Peru gave notice that the 
treaty of 1851 should terminate. This treaty, there¬ 
fore, came to an end on December 9, 1863, and we 
had no treaty of commerce and navigation with Peru 
until 1870. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


341 


In 1858, however, the United States concluded a 
treaty with Bolivia which confirmed to us the rights 
of navigation previously granted by a decree, and 
article twenty-six said : 

“In accordance with fixed principles of international law, 
Bolivia regards the rivers Amazon and La Plata, with their 
tributaries, as highways or channels opened by nature for the 
commerce of all nations. In virtue of which, and desirous of 
promoting an interchange of productions through these chan¬ 
nels, she will permit, and invites, commercial vessels of all 
descriptions of the United States, and of all other nations of 
the world, to navigate freely in any part of their courses which 
pertain to her, ascending those rivers to Bolivian ports, and 
descending therefrom to the ocean.” 

If we had had everywhere in South America min¬ 
isters as competent and energetic as Mr. Clay and 
Mr. Schenck, we should probably have acquired a 
commercial influence on that continent, at a time 
when we had a large commercial marine, before the 
war, so great that it would still remain to us. Un¬ 
fortunately Mr. Schenck’s successor at Rio de Jan¬ 
eiro, Mr. Trousdale, a very estimable man, who had 
been governor of Tennessee, was old and crippled with 
rheumatism, and was by disposition totally unfitted 
for diplomatic work. His manner of living and his 
ignorance of the usages of the world made him unfit 
for society, and he never succeeded in making those 
social relations which increase the influence of a min¬ 
ister in a large country. In accordance with his in- 


342 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


structions, Mr. Trousdale represented to Brazil the 
desire of the United States for the opening of the 
Amazon ; but he was put off from time to time, and 
finally, after ten months, the Brazilian minister replied 
that he could not consent to the doctrine proposed by 
the United States; “it could not prevail unless it 
were for substituting the principles of interest and 
force for those of right and justice.” He main¬ 
tained that the principles of the treaty of Vienna 
did not apply, and had not been recognized even by 
all of Europe, and that England and France, by their 
treaties of 1849, had even admitted the navigation 
of the river Parana to be interior and not interna¬ 
tional. Subsequent treaties on that subject he took 

• 

no notice of. He said that the Amazon valley was a 
desert in Brazil, and in other countries it was still less 
populated; that no advantages could result to the 
United States or other country by opening the river. 
He added: “ It is not the intention of the imperial 
government to keep the Amazon forever closed to 
foreign transit and foreign commerce. Its opening, 
however, does not seem to it to be as yet called 
for.” 

Notwithstanding this reply Mr. Trousdale proposed 
a commercial treaty with the Brazilian government 
in December, 1854. To this proposition he received 
an answer only in December, 1855. The proposal was 
politely declined, the minister saying that he supposed 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


343 


the chief object of it was to open the Amazon. As 
to that, Brazil preferred to open the Amazon volun¬ 
tarily to doing so by treaty with any one nation ; that 
the absence of treaties for the northern and western 
boundaries of Brazil made a delay necessary. Matters 
remained in this condition until 1866. Our war and 
the cessation of our treaty with Peru had prevented 
us from pressing the subject. On December 7, 1866, 
the Emperor of Brazil issued a decree which opened 
the Amazon, together with its tributaries the San 
Francisco and the Tocantins, to the commerce of all 
the world from and after September 7, 1867. Its 
tributaries—the Topajos, the Madeira, and Rio Negro 
—were also opened, but not through the upper part 
of their course, where only one bank belonged to the 
Brazilian empire. 

But at this time our foreign commerce and our 
carrying trade had been ruined by the war and our 
absurd shipping laws, and the decree announcing the 
opening of the Amazon, in which Mr. Marcy and Mr. 
Randolph Clay were so deeply interested, was ap¬ 
parently received by Mr. Seward with as little emo¬ 
tion as if it had notified him of the dissolution of 
Parliament, or some other object of purely Brazilian 
concern. 

Peru again followed the example of Brazil, and on 
December 17, 1868, President Jose Balta decreed 
that “ the navigation of all the rivers of the Republic 


344 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


is open to merchant vessels, whatever be their nation- 
ality.” * 

* Collection of Peruvian Treaties, Lima, 1876, p. 115. The 
facts in the above sketch have been taken from the original 
manuscript despatches in the State Department. The papers 
on this subject have never been officially published, but ex¬ 
tracts are given by Mr. Lawrence in his notes to Wheaton, 
edition of 1863, pp. 363-365. The notes between Mr. Clay 
and the Peruvian ministers are printed in the collection of 
Oviedo, vii,, pp. 108-134. 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


345 


jV.—EUROPEAN RIVERS. 

The Scheldt.—French Efforts for Free Navigation.—Treaties 
of Paris and Vienna.—The Rhine.—The Scheldt.—The 
Elbe.—The Danube.—Congress of Paris.—Riparian Com¬ 
mission.—The European Commission.—Treaties of 1871 
and 1878.—Proposed Mixed Commission.—Roumanian 
Objections.—The Barrere Proposal.—Course of Russia. 
—Conference of London of 1883.—Results. 

It is necessary to state in a few words the course 
which the question of free navigation has taken in 
Europe. The first dispute on this subject related 
to the Scheldt. By the treaties of Westphalia, by 
which the United Provinces of the Netherlands were 
declared independent, the mouths of the Scheldt 
were closed on the frontier between Holland and the 
Catholic provinces, although the commerce of these 
provinces, now Belgium, naturally went through 
them. After the Spanish provinces were ceded to 
Austria by the treaty of Utrecht (1713), they were 
submitted to a military servitude in favor of the 
United Provinces. The Barrier treaty, signed be¬ 
tween Austria, Great Britain, and Holland, Novem¬ 
ber 15, 1715, even stipulated that several cities should 
receive a Dutch garrison. In 1773 ? Joseph II. de¬ 
clared the Barrier treaty to be no longer necessary, 
and in 1784; with the idea of disembarrassing Bel¬ 
gium of commercial dependence on Holland, brought 


346 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


up some old claims against that country. These 
claims were denied by the States-General, and the 
Emperor, who could not see one of the finest rivers of 
the world shut to commerce, and his subjects de¬ 
prived by policy of the advantages that nature had 
given them, declared that he would abandon all his 
claims if the United Provinces would consent to the 
navigation of the Scheldt by his subjects. The in¬ 
tervention of Great Britain and France was then 
asked for, and by the the treaty of Fontainebleau, 
November 8, 1785, the treaties of Westphalia were 
confirmed, the Barrier treaty annulled, but the Scheldt 
continued to be closed for the Belgic provinces from 
Saftingen to the sea. 

Very soon after this came the French Revolution, 
and the Republic overturned everything in its power, 
as far as possible, that it considered contrary to its 
interests. ' By a decree of the Executive Council, 
November 20, 1792, it opened the navigation of the 
Scheldt and the Meuse, and proclaimed the principle 
that one nation cannot without injustice claim the 
right of occupying exclusively the channel of a river, 
and of preventing neighboring peoples who live on 
its upper banks from enjoying the same advantage. 
On May 16, 1795, a treaty between the French and 
Batavian governments declared the navigation of the 
Rhine, the Meuse, the Scheldt, and the 'Hondt, and 
all their branches to the sea, to be free to the two na- 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


347 


tions, the French and the Batavian. At the Con¬ 
gress of Rastadt, in 1798, France demanded not only 
the free navigation of the Rhine but of its branches, 
and expressed the hope of seeing these principles 
adopted on all the great German rivers, and especially 
on the Danube, on account of the immense benefit 
which results from free navigation. It was, however, 
by the treaty of Luneville, February 9, 1801, that the 
French demands were granted. A convention be¬ 
tween Germany and France, for the tolls on the navi¬ 
gation of the Rhine, was signed on August 15, 1804. 
Similar principles were afterward adopted for the 
Vistula, the Elbe, and other rivers. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the principle of free 
navigation was one contended for by the French 
Republic, yet the five great powers, in the treaty of 
Paris of May 30, 1814, inserted an article on this 
subject: 

11 The navigation of the Rhine, from the point where it be¬ 
comes navigable to the sea, and reciprocally, shall be free in 
such a way that it cannot be forbidden to anybody ; and the 
future Congress shall consider the principles according to 
which the duties levied by the riparian states can be regulated 
in a manner most equal and most favorable to the commerce 
of all nations.” 

It was agreed, also, that the Congress should con¬ 
sider how the same dispositions could be extended to 
all other rivers which in their navigable course sepa¬ 
rate or traverse different states. 


348 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C K 


The Congress of Vienna did not, however, realize 
the project of perfect freedom of navigation which had 
been entrusted to it. A commission was constituted 
to draw up a plan, composed chiefly of the delegates 
of the riparian states, though Lord Clancarty sat as 
English delegate, showing that the commission had 
an international footing. The French project, which 
was the basis of discussion, was very simple, saying, 
“ the Rhine shall be considered as a river common to 
the riparian states, and its navigation shall be entirely 
free a'nd cannot be forbidden to anybody.” Lord 
Clancarty proposed some slight changes, accentuating 
the fact of the freedom of the Rhine to everybody ; 
but Baron William Humboldt, on the part of Prussia, 
proposed, two weeks later, another draft which read : 
“ The navigation of the Rhine shall be entirely free, 
and cannot, in regard to commerce, be forbidden to 
anybody.” These words “ in regard to commerce ” 
seemed somewhat suspicious to Lord Clancarty, but 
he was outvoted, and the commission held, quite 
contrary to the original project, that the Congress of 
1814 had only intended to throw open the Rhine to 
the riparian states, and not to all nations who had 
nothing to offer in return. This was bad : but worse 
was to follow. Humboldt’s draft, as accepted by the 
Congress of Vienna, read, “ that the navigation of the 
Rhine was free to the sea.” Holland claimed that 
“ to the sea ” did not mean “ into the sea,” and that 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


349 


therefore at the highest limit of tide-water she could 
place barriers and tolls. This question had to be 
taken up by the Congress at Verona, in 1822, and the 
five powers signed a protocol by which they declared 
that they were authorized “ to concur in the exe¬ 
cution of the dispositions of the act of the Congress 
of Vienna relating to the navigation of the Rhine.” 
Holland still delayed conforming to them, and on 
February 14, 1826, Prince Metternich was obliged to 
say in a note “ that the freedom of the navigation of 
the Rhine into the sea is ah express condition of the 
existence of the kingdom of the Netherlands, and that 
the international law of Europe demands his Majesty 
the King to subordinate his sovereignty to the con¬ 
ditions established by the treaties.” It was not, how¬ 
ever, until 1831 that the Convention for the Regula¬ 
tion and Navigation of the Rhine was signed, by 
which, in spite of the general principles of the treaty 
of 1814, the navigation of the Rhine can only be 
exercised by known subjects of the riparian states. 
Even the navigation from the sea and to the sea is 
reserved to those, to the exclusion of non-riparian 
states. 

The question of the navigation of the Scheldt was 
never entirely arranged until the treaty of 1839, and 
the separation of the respective territories of Belgium 
and the Netherlands. This convention still allowed 
the existence, for the profit of Holland, of certain 


350 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


taxes or tolls on navigation. These, however, were 
abolished by the treaty concluded May 12, 1863, be¬ 
tween Belgium and Holland, by which, for the sum of 
17,140,640 florins, Holland renounced all rights of toll 
on the river. By the protocol of July 15, 1863, Bel¬ 
gium arranged with the European powers that each 
should pay its share of this sum; and the United 
States, by a separate convention of May 20, 1863, and 
a treaty of July 20, 1863, agreed to pay its proportion, 
which was 2,779,200 francs, in ten annual instalments, 
with interest at four per cent. This sum was finally 
paid in 1873, having amounted in all to $606,202.67. 

In the treaty signed at Vienna between Prussia and 
Saxony, May 18, 1815, it was stipulated that the gen¬ 
eral principles stated by the Congress should be ap¬ 
plied to the Elbe as soon as possible. Plenipotentia¬ 
ries were appointed by the ten riparian states, but it 
was only in June, 1821, that an act of navigation was 
signed which gave the rights of navigation only to 
the riparian states. Owing in great measure to the 
free city of Hamburg, assisted by both Hanover and 
Mecklenburg, an additional act, in the year 1844, 
granted greater freedom in allowing the ships of all 
nations to transport persons and merchandise from 
the North Sea to the ports of the Elbe, and vice versa , 
the internal navigation being still reserved for the 
riparian States. 

Another question arose with regard to the Elbe— 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


351 


that of the tolls at Stade, which were levied by the 
government of Hanover on all ships descending or as¬ 
cending the river. The Hanoverian government was 
deaf to all appeals, claiming that the tolls at Stade 
were sea tolls and not river tolls. Finally, England 
refused to renew its treaty of 1844 on that subject, 
Holland and Belgium followed its example, and the 
United States had always refused to recognize the 
right of Hanover to impose these duties. We had 
succeeded by our treaty of 1846 in obtaining that no 
higher or other toll should be levied at Brunshausen 
or Stade, on the Elbe, on the tonnage of cargoes of 
vessels of the United States, and no other charges or 
inconveniences other, than were levied on the vessels 
of Hanover. In 1861 the question returned, and, by 
the treaty of June 26th, most maritime states agreed to 
pay an indemnity to Hanover of 2,857,338^ thalers, in 
consideration of the total abolition of the Stade dues. 
We agreed by our treaty of November 6, 1861, to pay 
our quota, amounting to 60,353 thalers, on considera¬ 
tion that the dues should be abolished forever ; that 
no charge of any kind should be imposed in compen¬ 
sation thereof ; and that the works necessary for the 
free navigation of the Elbe should be maintained as 
before by the government of Hanover. 

The treaty of July 3, 1849, for the navigation of 
the Po was far more liberal than any preceding trea¬ 
ties, in allowing navigation to be free to all nations. 


352 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


That question has, however, been put entirely aside 
by all the banks of the Po being now absorbed into 
the kingdom of Italy. 

However little these various conventions for the 
free navigation of rivers conformed to the ideas of the 
treaty of 1814, yet one thing was gained—that a river 
flowing along or through two or more states was 
looked upon as being the common property of them, 
over which no one had a right to exercise authority 
to the exclusion of the others. 

It has often been claimed as one of the merits of 
the Congress of Paris of 1856, that it extended the 
principle of the free navigation of rivers to the 
Danube. The freedom there proclaimed has been 
restricted in ways which are interesting to study. 
Here the principle, which we proclaimed a century 
ago, that states lying on the upper course of a river 
had a right to navigate the lower course, is so 
stretched as to imply that such states have a right to 
control the navigation. 

The freedom of navigation on the Danube had 
been recognized by Austria and Turkey by the treaty 
of Passarowitz in 1784. Russia in 1812 gained a foot¬ 
ing on the river, which was increased to such an ex¬ 
tent that at last she had in her possession all the 
mouths of the Danube ; and although by the treaty 
with Austria in 1840 it had been agreed not to impose 
tolls on navigation, there were vexations from qua- 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


353 


rantines which amounted to about the same thing. 
An English vessel in 1853 was obliged to remain 
sixty-five days at Galatz; and although Odessa and 
Galatz were at about the same distance from Con¬ 
stantinople, the freight to Galatz was twenty-two 
francs higher than to Odessa. England and Austria 
protested against this state of things, for the mouths 
of the Danube had been allowed to fill up ; but they 
were unable to do anything until 1854, when, on the 
outbreak of the Crimean War, the re-establishment 
of free navigation was recognized as indispensable. 
This question was always brought up at the various 
negotiations for peace; and finally, in 1856 it was 
agreed, by Articles 15 to 19 of the treaty of Paris, to 
apply the principles of the Congress of Vienna to the 
Danube and its mouths ; and it was declared “ that 
this arrangement henceforth forms a part of the public 
law of Europe, and is taken under its guaranty.” No 
toll was to be founded solely on the navigation of 
the river, nor any duty placed on the goods which 
may be on board the vessels. Regulations of police 
and quarantine were to be arranged so as to facilitate 
the passage of vessels. With the exception of such 
regulations, no obstacle whatever shall be opposed to 
their navigation. A European Commission, in which 
the signatory powers were to be represented each by 
one delegate, was to be charged with executing the 
necessary works for clearing the mouths of the 
2 3 


354 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


Danube. A Riparian Commission, which was in¬ 
tended to be permanent, was to prepare the regula¬ 
tions for navigation and river police, to remove the 
impediments, of whatever nature they might be, still 
preventing the application to the Danube of the ar¬ 
rangements of Vienna, to execute necessary works 
throughout the whole course of the river, and, after 
the dissolution of the European Commission, to 
maintain the mouth of the Danube and the neighbor¬ 
ing parts of the sea in a navigable state. 

The difficulties after this came not from Russia, 
but from Austria, which had, during the whole course 
of the deliberations, attempted to restrict the free 
navigation of the river to the riparian states solely. 
Under the guidance of Austria regulations were drawn 
up by the Riparian Commission, which were presented 
to the conference of Paris in 1858, with the claim that 
all that the conference had a right to exact was to 
acknowledge their receipt, upon which they would 
immediately be put into vigor. These regulations, 
however, had been drawn up in a manner entirely 
contrary to the spirit of the treaty of Paris, with the 
intention of reserving, as far as possible, all rights on 
the river to the riparian states, and especially to the 
Austrian steamer companies, which had a monopoly of 
the navigation, and in which various high personages 
in Austria were said to be interested. An attempt 
was made to introduce a distinction between internal 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


355 


navigation from port to port, and the navigation be¬ 
tween any part of the river and the sea, the latter 
only being free to all nations. The articles on agents, 
licenses, etc., were all drawn up so as to maintain the 
monopoly of the riparian states. The transit of any 
article prohibited by the tariff of any country was for¬ 
bidden contrary to the stipulations of the treaty; and 
also in a like way the riparian states were given power 
to levy taxes and tolls for the purposes of paying the 
expenses of keeping the river navigable. Lord Cow¬ 
ley, the English plenipotentiary, protested; and the 
representatives of France, Prussia, Russia, and Sar¬ 
dinia fully agreed with him. Turkey refused to apply 
the regulations for navigation, on the ground that they 
had not been approved by Europe, and therefore the 
whole project of Austria fell to the ground. The 
representatives of the powers at the same time re¬ 
fused to put an end to the European Commission be¬ 
cause the works for clearing the mouths of the Danube 
had not yet been finished. The European Commis¬ 
sion proved so successful that when a subsequent 
conference met at Paris in 1856 it was retained. Par¬ 
ticular attention had been given to the Sulina mouth ; 
and here the works executed by Sir Charles Hartley 
had deepened the channel of the river from seven 
feet in 1856 to seventeen and a half feet in 1863. In 
five years the shipwrecks in passing the mouths of the 
Danube had been 0.81 per cent, of the total number 


356 


A ME RICA A r DIPL OM A C } \ 


of vessels; whereas after i860 they were reduced to 
0.21 per cent., and the commerce had greatly increased. 

Up to 1871, therefore, there were three different 
regulations applied to the Danube: From Isaktcha to 
the mouth those of the European Commission ; from 
Orsova up to Iller, the head of navigation, the regula¬ 
tions established by Austria, and the riparian Ger¬ 
man states; only the intermediate part, from Orsova 
to Isaktcha was under the same want of regulation as 
before the treaty of Paris; for Turkey, which was a 
riparian state for this whole portion, had refused to 
put the regulations into force. 

When Russia, on October 31, 1870, declared that 
she could no longer consider herself bound by the 
obligations of the treaty of Paris, as far as they re¬ 
stricted her rights of sovereignty in the Black Sea, 
Austria saw that she should gain more by the con¬ 
tinuance of the European Commission, and that the 
question of the Danube was nearly allied to that of 
the Black Sea. By the treaty of London of 1871 it 
was agreed to continue the duration of the European 
Commission for twelve years—that is, until April 24, 
1883, and the riparian powers were allowed to levy 
tolls for the removal of obstructions at the Iron 
Gates. 

By the treaty of Berlin of 1878, which followed the 
Russian-Turkish War, another change was made with 
regard to the Danube. Bessarabia, which had been 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


357 


taken away by the peace of Paris, after the Crimean 
War, was retroceded to Russia; and Russia therefore 
became riparian on the Kilia mouth of the Danube, 
the most northern of the three chief mouths, and 
formerly considered the best. By this treaty, in 
order to preserve the freedom of the Danube, all 
the fortifications and forts from the Iron Gates to 
the mouth were ordered to be razed, and no new 
ones could be erected. No vessel of war was al¬ 
lowed to navigate the Danube below the Iron Gates, 
with the exception of those of the river police and 
customs. Despatch-boats of the great powers, gen¬ 
erally stationed at the mouth of the Danube, were 
allowed to ascend the Danube as high as Galatz. 
The powers of the European Commission were ex¬ 
tended from Isaktcha to Galatz, nearly fifty miles 
further. Austria-Hungary then desired the perma¬ 
nent continuance of the European Commission, but 
objections were made by Russia; and, without finally 
deciding the matter, the treaty merely stipulated that 
an agreement of some kind should be made one year 
before the expiration of the powers of the Commission. 
It was, however, arranged that regulations respecting 
navigation, river police, and supervision, from Galatz 
up to the Iron Gates, should be drawn up by the 
European Commission, assisted by delegates of the 
riparian states, and put in harmony with the regula¬ 
tions made for that portion of the river below Galatz. 


358 


A MERIC A N DIP IOMA C Y. 


The general Riparian Commission provided for by the 
treaty of Paris was tacitly allowed to become extinct ; 
and the works for removing the cataracts at the Iron 
Gates were transferred from the riparian powers to 
Austria-Hungary. Such was the haste to conclude 
the treaty of Berlin, that nothing was provided for 
the execution of the regulations for the Middle 
Danube, the propositions both of the Austrian and 
the Russian plenipotentiaries having been rejected. 
Article 55 spoke only of the preparation of the 
regulations. The European Commission of the Dan¬ 
ube met, and after a long discussion decided, in spite 
of the opposition of Roumania, which by the treaty 
of Berlin had been allowed to have a member of the 
European Commission, to bring in a preliminary draft 
of regulations. These provided that a so-called 
Mixed Commission should be appointed, composed of 
delegates of the riparian states, and also of a delegate 
of Austria-Hungary, which latter should have the 
presidency and a casting vote. In this way Austria- 
Hungary, without being a riparian power for this por¬ 
tion of the river, would be able to decide all questions 
with regard to the navigation of the Danube, and 
would have the predominance on the river below the 
Iron Gates, at the expense of the riparian powers and 
perhaps also of the general interests of the world. 
This preliminary draft met with such objections that 
it had to be abandoned. 


FREE NAVIGATION- OF RIVERS. 


359 


After some very stormy sessions and long discus¬ 
sions the French delegate, Mr. Barrere, afterward 
the French representative in Egypt, proposed as a so¬ 
lution that not only Austria-Hungary should sit in 
the Mixed Commission with the delegates of the ri¬ 
parian states, and should have the presidency, but also 
that there should be present a delegate from the Eu¬ 
ropean Commission, appointed for six months in regu¬ 
lar alphabetical order. The Mixed Commission, being 
thus raised from four to five members, there would be 
no necessity for a casting vote. Another advantage 
was that there would thus be a connection established 
between the Mixed Commission and the European 
Commission, which would imply some sort of a con¬ 
trol by Europe. The difficulties were, that, owing to 
the alphabetical arrangement, the names of the powers 
being in French (the language generally adopted in 
diplomatic acts) Austria and Germany would have 
the first two representatives from the European Com¬ 
mission ; and it would naturally be during the first 
year that the regulations for the Mixed Commission 
would be made. As Germany was acting in concert 
with Austria, this was really equivalent to giving 
Austria two votes, although, strictly speaking, Aus¬ 
tria was not a riparian power, but simply a power 
holding a portion of the upper waters of the river, and 
therefore having a great interest in the regulations 
for the navigation of the lower portion. Roumania, 


360 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


in its turn, would have had two delegates ; but its 
turn would have been the last, and it then would 
have been difficult to have changed the regulations 
previously adopted. Roumania absolutely refused to 
accept the proposition of Barrere, yet, in spite of this 
opposition, and of the rule which demanded that all 
of the decisions of the European Commission should 
be taken unanimously, it was decided to report the 
result to the powers. This resolution was signed on 
June 2, 1882. The powers of the European Commis- 
sion expired in less than a year. All countries, but 
especially England, which had sixty-seven per cent, of 
the total navigation of the mouths of the river, were 
greatly interested in the result ; and in consequence of 
negotiations Lord Granville proposed a conference at 
London for the purpose of settling the dispute. 

An additional difficulty was raised by Russia, who 
proposed to withdraw from the control of the Euro¬ 
pean Commission that part of the northern mouths of 
the Danube under its exclusive jurisdiction, including 
the mouth of Otchakof, which had formerly been the 
chief mouth. Russia proposed not only to prevent 
the officers of the European Commission from visiting 
the mouths which she exclusively controlled, but to 
execute works which, if successful, it was urged by 
others, would perhaps divert the whole of the com¬ 
merce from the Sulina mouth of the Danube, the only 
one which so far had been improved, and thus render 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


361 


the European Commission of no account. These fears 
seem to be groundless; but there were other political 
considerations, of which it is enough to mention that 
by the possession of these months exclusively, Rus¬ 
sia could prepare vessels and munitions there, en¬ 
abling her at any time to sail up the Danube in case 
of a future war in that region. The conference of 
London met in February, 1883. Austria refused to 
assent to the prolongation of the European Com¬ 
mission, unless the Mixed Commission, in conformity 
with the principles of the Barrere amendment—which 
was the last concession that she would make—were 
accepted. Russia demanded, for the sake of the 
liberty of the Danube, the exemption of her mouths 
from European control ; and Great Britain, in order 
to save something for her large commerce, agreed to 
yield to both. Roumania had a natural title to be 
present at this conference, not only as a riparian 
power of the Danube, but also as having a delegate in 
the European Commission. But her representatives, 
as well as those of Serbia and Bulgaria, were ex¬ 
cluded. • In spite of her protests, the conference ac¬ 
cepted in principle the Mixed Commission, and the 
powers even ratified the treaty, although it was evident 
that it could not be enforced without the consent of 
Roumania, a riparian power. It could not be ex¬ 
pected that the powers would resort to force to im¬ 
pose measures which had been absolutely rejected by 


362 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C K 


the chief riparian power ; for at least one-third of the 
navigable distance of the Danube had one bank be¬ 
longing to Roumania. In spite of the Austrian rep¬ 
resentation, the conference refused to make its deci¬ 
sions executory. Although ratified, the decisions of 
the conference, as far as Roumania was concerned, re¬ 
mained in abeyance. Russia is the only power 
which has attained anything, for it was agreed that 
the Russian mouths of the Danube should be ex¬ 
empted from the operation of the European Com- 
mission. By the convention of London the powers 
of the European Commission were extended from 
three years to three years, unless denounced by one 
of the signatory powers; and the powers of the 
Commission were extended up the river as far as 
Brail a. 

To these measures Roumania made no objection. 
The question of the free navigation of rivers had 
reached a singular phase. The states in possession of 
the mouths and the lower portion of the Danube were 
in favor of free navigation, while the power holding 
the upper portion of the river was desirous of restrict¬ 
ing the navigation of the lower portion in its own 
interests and in the interests of monopolies created 
by it. 

The result is that, at the present time, there are 
eight different systems of regulation for the Danube, 
instead of one for the whole river, which was pro- 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


363 


vided for by the treaty of Paris of 1856. We have, 
according to the convention of London, 

First , The regime of Wiirtemberg and Bavaria, for 
the highest portion of the river. 

Second', That of Austria-Hungary. 

Third, That of Serbia. 

Fourth , That of the Iron Gates, which is confided 
to Austria-Hungary. 

Fifth , That of the Mixed Commission, from the 
Iron Gates to Braila. 

Sixth , That of the European Commission. 

Seventh , That of Russia and Roumania, on the 
Kilia branch. 

Eighth, That of Russia on the Otchakof mouth.* 

* See Etienne Carathedory, Du droit international concer- 
nant lesgrands cours d'eau, Leipzig, 1861 ; E. Engelhardt, Du 
regime conventionnel des fleuves internationaux , Paris, 1879 ; 
von Holtzendorff, Rumaniens Uferrechte a)i der Donau, Leip¬ 
zig, 1883 ; F. Heinrich Geffcken, La question du Danube, Ber¬ 
lin, 1883 ; F. von Martens, Volkerrecht; the protocols of the 
European Commission and of the London Conference. 


364 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


/.—THE CONGO AND THE NIGER. 

VERY recently the principles of free navigation have 
been extended to two great rivers of the African con¬ 
tinent. Mr. Henry M. Stanley, under the patronage 
of the King of Belgium, had for some years been ex¬ 
ploring the valley of the Congo for the purpose of 
ascertaining its,, capabilities for trade. It was gen¬ 
erally understood that this region was soon to be 
opened freely to the trade of the world, when the 
governments of England and Portugal, both jealous 
of any interference with their rights on the west 
coast of Africa, made the treaty of February 26, 1884, 
by which that portion of the southwest African 
coast between south latitude 5 0 12' and 5 0 18' was 
recognized as Portuguese. This gave the mouth of 
the river Congo to Portugal, and cut off the domain 
of the International African Association from the 
sea. France, which claimed some rights to the 
Congo valley, in consequence of the explorations of 
Monsieur De Brazza, and of the treaties made by 
him with various African chiefs, immediately pro¬ 
tested ; so also did Germany and the United States, 
on more general principles. The subject was brought 
to the attention of Congress, and by a resolution of 
the Senate of April 10, 1884, the President was 


FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 


365 


authorized to recognize the International African 
Association. This was done by proclamation. In 
consequence of the disputes to which the Anglo-Por- 
tuguese treaty gave rise—which, it must be said, was 
thoroughly disapproved of in the commercial centres 
of England—Germany finally called a conference of 
the chief commercial and maritime states, which met 
at Berlin on November 15, 1884. In this congress 
there were representatives of Germany, Austria, Bel¬ 
gium, Denmark, Spain, the United States, France, 
Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Rus¬ 
sia, Sweden, and Turkey. Turkey was admitted, 
because, on the basis of his rights as Caliph, the Sul¬ 
tan claimed some indefinite spiritual jurisdiction over 
the Mussulmans in the interior of Africa. After long 
discussion, a treaty having been objected to, a general 
act was agreed upon, and signed on February 26, 
1885, which established the Free State of the Congo, 
into which the African International Association was 
merged, and granted, first, freedom of trade in the 
basin of the Congo, its mouths, and certain adjacent 
districts; second, the free navigation of the river 
Congo, in all its mouths and branches, to be exercised 
under the supervision of an international commission, 
on the principles set forth by the Congress of V ienna 
of 1815, and the treaties of Paris of 1856, of Berlin of 
1878, and of London of 1871 and 1883; and, third, 
; the free navigation of the river Niger and its branches, 


3 66 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C V. 


without prejudice to the rights of England and 
France, who agreed to carry out the treaty in the 
waters under their jurisdiction. 

President Cleveland, in his message of December 8, 
1885, refused to ask the Senate to approve of this 
general act, on the ground that “ an engagement to 
share in the obligation of enforcing neutrality in the 
remote valley of the Congo would be an alliance 
whose responsibilities we are not in a position to as¬ 
sume.” Mr. J. A. Kasson, one of the delegates of the 
United States to the conference, in an article in the 
North American Review for February, 1886, seems 
to show that this action is based on a misunder¬ 
standing of the provision of the act. Indeed, there 
is nothing whatever expressed in that document about 
“ enforcing ” neutrality. The powers have agreed 
only to “ respect the neutrality of the territory.”* 

So far as the free navigation of the Congo and the 
Niger are concerned, it makes little difference to us 
whether we ratify the act or not. These rivers are 
open to the whole world. The only detrimental re¬ 
sult is that we can take no share in preparing or 
executing the regulations governing such free naviga¬ 
tion. We lose an opportunity of doing a service to 
our future commerce with Africa. 

* See the full text of the General Act, and especially Chap¬ 
ter III., which is printed in Mr. H. M. Stanley’s last book on 
the Congo. 


VII. 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


Subjection of Neutrals.—Our Treaty with France of 1778.— 
Armed Neutrality of 1780.—Its Origin.—Our Treaties with 
the Netherlands, Sweden, and Prussia.—Franklin’s Ideas. 
—John Quincy Adams and the Renewal of the Prussian 
Treaty.—Our Negotiations of 1823 to Preserve Private 
Property from Capture at Sea.—Letters of Marque.— 
Privateering.—Declarations of 1854. —Our Reply.— 
Treaty with Russia.—President Pierce’s Message.—Decla¬ 
ration of Paris of 1856.—The Marcy Amendment.—Opin¬ 
ions of other Powers.—English Opposition.—Cessation of 
Negotiations under President Buchanan.—Proposal of 
Mr. Seward. — Its Rejection. — European Wars. — Our 
Treaty with Italy of 1871. 

After having explained to a limited extent the ef¬ 
forts of the United States to secure the freedom of 
navigation and commerce in time of peace, it is neces¬ 
sary to mention briefly what they have attempted to 
do for the freedom of commerce and navigation in 
time of war. 

At the outbreak of the American Revolution the 
commerce of the world was governed, or rather mis¬ 
governed, by a system of arbitrary and contradictory 
rules imposed by the great maritime powers, especially 


3 68 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


Great Britain, all tending one way, to the effacement 
and abolition of all rights of small neutral states 
when the larger powers were at war with each other. 
According to the rules of English fair-play the ring 
was to be cleared, and outsiders were allowed to com¬ 
municate with each other only under severe pains and 
penalties. The world was to stand still, and starve, 
it might be, whenever England fought. 

In the very first commercial treaty made by the 
United States, that with France of February 6, 1778, 
signed on the same day with the treaty of alliance, 
we adopted the more liberal maxim, already pro¬ 
claimed by France, that “free ships make free goods.” 
It was agreed also that so far as France and the 
United States were concerned, either nation should 
be allowed to trade with one at war with the other 
without danger of capture, and, therefore, that the 
ships of either of these two countries could carry the 
property belonging to enemies without risk ; that free 
ships shall also give a freedom to goods, and that 
everything shall be deemed to be free and exempt 
which shall be found on board of the ships, although 
the whole lading or any part thereof should pertain to 
the enemies of either, contraband goods being always 
excepted. The definition of contraband goods was 
also laid down as being solely munitions of war. Mer¬ 
chandise which had in some instances by some coun¬ 
tries been prohibited, such as cloths, manufactured 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


369 


articles, gold and silver, metals, tobacco, fish, grain, 
and other provisions, and even cotton, hemp, flax, tar, 
pitch, ropes, cables and sails, and materials for mak¬ 
ing ships, were not to be regarded as contraband. 

This treaty preceded, but not by a long time, the 
declaration of the northern powers of Europe as to 
the rights of neutral trade, which is generally spoken 
of under the name of the “Armed Neutrality.” 

The first idea of the armed neutrality is now ad¬ 
mitted to have belonged to Russia, but for a long 
time it was ascribed by many writers to Frederick the 
Great, and the French Abbe Denina, in his biography 
of Frederick the Second, affirmed that even in 1744 
Frederick had dreamed of a confederation of this sort. 
Catherine II., on reading the book of Denina, wrote 
opposite that passage : “ This is untrue. The idea of 
the armed neutrality arose in the brain of Catherine 
II. and of no one else. Count Bezborodko can bear 
witness that this thought was expressed by the Em¬ 
press very unexpectedly. Count Panin did not wish 
to hear about an armed neutrality. This idea did not 
belong to him, and it took much labor to convince 
him, so that it was confided to Bakunin, who carried 
out this business.”* 

Wheaton, and most writers on international law 
who have succeeded him, have followed the version 
given by Baron von Goertz in a little pamphlet which 

* Diary of A. V. Khrapovitzky, p. 475. 

24 


370 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


he published, first anonymously, and then under his 
own name,* in which he gave the credit of the armed 
neutrality to Count Panin as a means of counteracting 
the efforts of the English minister, Mr. James Harris, 
afterward Earl of Malmesbury, who was endeavoring 
to gain the Empress to take the side of England. 
Goertz was in some respects a clever man, but he sig¬ 
nally failed in all his missions, and his pamphlet was 
written, or at least published, after the death of most 
of the parties cpncerned. His motives may be 
guessed at, but it is not worth our while to consider 
them. Since that time not only has the correspond¬ 
ence of Lord Malmesbury been published, but the 
history of the armed neutrality, from the Russian point 
of view, supported by a complete series of documents, 
has also been given to light.t We find from these 
papers not only that Goertz is entirely wrong as to 
the way in which the armed neutrality arose, but even 
as to its date.'J Although the final declaration was 

* Me moire on precis historique sur la neutrality armee et son 
origine. Bale, 1795 and 1801. 

f See the Russian Nautical Magazine ( Morskoi Sbornik ), 
1859, Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12. 

t Professor Carl Bergbohm, of Dorpat, in his very interest¬ 
ing and instructive work, Die bewaffnete Neutralitdt (Berlin, 
1884), attempts to uphold the exact truth of the version of 
Goertz. The question is not of great interest, except to stu¬ 
dents of Russian or of diplomatic history ; but the book of 
Bergbohm seems an attempt to support a paradoxical theory, 
simply as an exercise of dialectic power, like many other 
German theses of the present day. 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


371 


dated in 1780, yet preliminary steps were taken and 
were known to the cabinets of Europe as early as De¬ 
cember, 1778. 

In 1778 a number of American privateers appeared 
in the northern ocean and did considerable injury to 
trade carried on by foreign merchants with the Russian 
port of Archangel. The Empress Catherine, desiring 
to protect her commerce, resolved in the subsequent 
summer to enter into negotiations with the courts of 
Denmark and Sweden for taking protective measures 
in common. Count Panin, the Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, to whom the matter was referred, reported 
that the peculiarity of the trade was such that the 
only harm caused to Russia was by the capture of 
vessels sailing for Archangel. If they were taken, the 
% goods might wait for a whole year for a foreign pur¬ 
chaser ; but, once the goods having been bought and 
despatched to a foreign port, it made no difference to 
Russia whether the English or the Americans profited 
by them. The Empress decided to send three or four 
ships and a frigate to protect the foreign trade going 
to Archangel, without distinction, and orders were 
given to advise the English, French, and American 
cruisers to leave those waters, as they would not be 
allowed to carry on their trade near the Russian 
coasts. Any actual attack on a merchant vessel 
might be repelled by force. Denmark and Sweden 
were asked to send to sea similar armed squadrons to 


3 7 2 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 

act in connection with Russia. Count Bernstorff, 
the Danish minister, replied that Denmark was so 
bound by treaties that it would be difficult for them 
to co-operate with Russia, as it would be a breach of 
their neutrality, for the whole advantage would be 
given to English ships. They were willing, however, 
to protect foreign commercial marine, but owing to 
having distant colonies it was necessary to be careful 
about the steps taken. Sweden, to which the same 
proposition was made in February, 1779, agreed to 
them ; but proposed at the same time taking broader 
measures for protecting neutral navigation even in 
the more distant seas. Russia actually sent, in 1779, 
into the northern ocean, for the protection of trading 
vessels, four ships and two frigates. The whole year, 
however, passed in these negotiations, which led to no 
decisive result. 

The capture, however, of two ships laden with 
Russian wares—one Dutch and the other Russian— 
by Spanish cruisers, in the beginning of 1780, and 
their condemnation and sale in Cadiz, as being prob¬ 
ably bound for Gibraltar, made the Empress so angry 
that in the representations to the Spanish govern¬ 
ment, conveyed both by the Russian minister at Mad¬ 
rid, and the Spanish minister at St. Petersburg, she 
demanded that all neutral ships carrying Russian 
goods should be free from capture, and that compen¬ 
sation should be made for those which had already 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


3/3 


been taken. At the same time an order was given to 
fit out, for readiness at the opening of navigation, two 
ships and two frigates, destined for the northern ocean 
as before, and fifteen other ships for any destination 
which might be given them. The Empress ordered 
Count Panin to say in reply to questions, that this 
squadron was fitted out for the defence of the Rus¬ 
sian flag, and that the Empress proposed to send 
them wherever the honor, profit, and need of the 
country demanded. On February 27, 1780, the Rus¬ 
sian government sent to the courts of London, Ver¬ 
sailles, and Madrid, the well-known declaration about 
neutral rights, the points of which were, first, that 
neutral ships can freely go from port to port, and on 
the coasts of the nations at war ; second, that prop¬ 
erty belonging to the subjects of the powers at war is 
free on neutral vessels, with the exception of contra¬ 
band ; third, that only arms and ammunition are 
recognized as contraband ; fourth, that blockades 
must be effective ; and fifth, that nothing but contra¬ 
band can make a lawful prize. 

Formal propositions were then made to Denmark, 
Sweden, Portugal, and the Netherlands, for taking 
similar measures and concluding conventions for that 
purpose. France and Spain replied to the Russian 
declaration by the assurance of their readiness to 
respect neutral rights. Spain excused her action 
toward the Russian ships on the ground of the at- 


374 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


tempts made to enter Gibraltar, and by English ex¬ 
amples, but promised to make indemnity. England 
replied negatively that she had always considered it 
her duty to give due respect to the Russian flag, and 
assured the Empress that the navigation of her sub¬ 
jects would never be interrupted or stopped by 
British vessels. 

The negotiations with the neutral powers resulted 
in a convention between Russia and Denmark on 
July 9, 1780, and with Spain, on August 1st of the 
same year, agreeing to the doctrine already laid 
down in the Russian declaration. The Netherlands 
agreed to the same principle at the end of December. 
Prussia, Austria, Portugal, and the Two Sicilies all 
accepted it within the two years following. The 
United States, by a resolution of Congress dated 
October 5, 1780, gave its adherence to the principle 
claimed by the armed neutrality, and offered to join 
the northern league. Mr. Adams communicated this 
action of Congress to the Dutch government, as well 
as to the ministers of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, 
in March, 1781 ; but as none of these governments 
were yet prepared to recognize the United States, no 
further action was taken. 

In the treaty with the Netherlands, in 1782, the 
provisions for guaranteeing neutral rights were practi¬ 
cally the same as those in the treaty of 1778 with 
France, that is, that free ships made free goods, and 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


375 


that goods found in an enemy’s ship would be liable 
to be confiscated, unless put on board before declara¬ 
tion of war or within six months thereafter. The 
definition of contraband goods was perfected. 

By the treaty with Sweden of 1783—the first power 
which voluntarily offered its friendship to the United 
States—the same provisions were repeated. A similar 
treaty would have been made with Denmark, had not, 
under the pressure of England, Denmark captured 
some American vessels engaged in trade prohibited 
by England. 

The treaty with Prussia in 1785 introduced some 
entirely new principles. It was negotiated under the 
influence of Dr. Franklin and of King Frederick the 
Great, and it has been often said that, owing to the 
slight probability that Prussia and the United States 
should be brought into conflict, the philanthropic 
provisions inserted in it were merely such declarations 
as speculative theorists might safely indulge in. Dr. 
Franklin, however, had already attempted to insert 
similar provisions in the treaty of peace with Great 
Britain in 1783. The English negotiators at that 
time refused to discuss the question of maritime 
rights. By this treaty with Prussia free ships made 
absolutely free goods, and no goods were to be 
regarded as contraband so as to justify confiscation, 
although the vessels carrying contraband goods could 
be retained until the contraband goods were taken 


376 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


out, and in that case such contraband goods being 
military stores could be used by the captors if the 
current price were paid for them. Blockades of all 
kinds were practically abolished, for merchant and 
trading vessels were to be allowed to pass free and 
unmolested, and privateering was entirely abolished 
as between the two countries. Dr. Franklin had al¬ 
ready Written on March 14, 1785 : 

“ It is high time, for the sake of humanity, that a stop were 
put to this enormity. The United States of America, though 
better situated than any European power to make profit by 
privateering, are, as far as in them lies, endeavoring to abolish 
the practice by offering in all their treaties with other powers 
an article engaging solemnly that in case of future war no 
privateer shall be commissioned on either side, and that all 
marine ships on both sides shall proceed on their voyages un¬ 
molested. This will be a happy improvement of the law of 
nations. The humane and the just cannot but wish general 
success to the proposition.” 

In making the treaty of 1794 with England, com¬ 
monly known as Jay’s treaty, the United States were 
obliged from imperative reasons (this seemed the only 
course possible to prevent a war) to retrace their steps 
and to admit, as far as England was concerned, certain 
principles of maritime law which they had always op¬ 
posed. It was expressly agreed that the flag did not 
cover the merchandise,—the only treaty signed by the 
United States in which this acknowledgment can be 
found. Ship timber, tar, hemp, sails, and copper 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS . 


377 


were declared contraband, although they had been 
made free in the other treaties concluded at that time 
by the United States. Provisions also were declared 
contraband. There was no definition of the right of 
search and blockade, but both were acknowledged in 
general terms. 

The treaty with Prussia expired by its own limita¬ 
tion in 1796, and Mr. John Quincy Adams was sent 
to Berlin for its renewal. Mr. Adams, although still a 
young man of only thirty-two years of age, had begun 
public life as secretary to Mr. Dana, our commissioner 
to St. Petersburg, and had recently been minister to 
The Hague. He had been appointed to Lisbon, but 
was finally transferred to Berlin for the purpose of 
this special negotiation. Subsequently minister at 
St. Petersburg, then at London, afterward Secretary 
of State for eight years, and finally President, he was 
an excellent example of the advantage of diplomatic 
training. His instructions at Berlin were to negotiate 
a treaty which was in opposition not only to his own 
personal views, but to those which the United States 
had previously expressed, and have subsequently in¬ 
sisted upon. He, however, took up the matter as a 
lawyer would a brief, and succeeded in satisfying our 
Government. He was aided in some respects by the 
opportune death of the King of Prussia, which left 
him several months without credentials for the new 
sovereign, and therefore without power for negotiating, 


378 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


a circumstance which enabled him to make acquaint¬ 
ances extremely useful to him. 

The position of the United States had been com¬ 
plicated not only by the treaty of 1794 with Great 
Britain, but by the action of England and France in 
the war. The principles of “ free ships, free goods,” 
which we had recognized in all our treaties and de¬ 
sired to become universal, we found to be of no avail 
so long as it was not universally recognized by mari¬ 
time nations. In fact it had been observed by other 
powers only when it would operate to the detriment 
of the United States, and not to our benefit. Mr. 
Adams was therefore instructed to propose the aban¬ 
donment of this article. The Prussian negotiators 
objected to giving it up entirely, on the ground of the 
confusion which it would cause in the commercial 
speculations of nations, and the rejection of claims 
prosecuted by them in the admiralty courts of France 
and Great Britain, relating to the captures and colli¬ 
sions with the northern powers, which were sustaining 
this principle at that very moment by armed convoys, 
and proposed a qualification. After a long discussion, 
in which Mr. Adams fully carried out the views of 
our Government, a treaty was agreed upon with the 
following article: 

“ Experience having proved that the principles adopted in 
the twelfth article of the treaty of 1785, according to which 
free ships make free goods, has not been sufficiently respected 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS . 


379 


during the last two wars, and especially in that which still con¬ 
tinues, the two contracting parties propose, after the return of 
a general peace, to agree, either separately between them¬ 
selves, or jointly with other powers alike interested, to concert, 
with the great maritime powers of Europe, such arrangements 
and such permanent principles as may serve to consolidate the 
liberty and the safety of the neutral navigation and commerce 
in future wars.” 

After it was approved, by the wish of the United 
States to prove it had no desire to part from the 
principles of the treaty of 1785, there was added : 

“ If in the interval either of the contracting parties should 
be engaged in a war to which the other should remain neutral, 
the ships of war and privateers of the belligerent power shall 
conduct themselves toward the merchant vessels of the neutral 
power as favorably as the course of war then existing may per¬ 
mit, observing the principles and rules of the law of nations 
generally acknowledged.” 

The treaty of 1799 itself expired in ten years, and 

* 

the twelfth article of the original treaty of 1785 was 
again revived by a treaty which was concluded be¬ 
tween the United States and Prussia in 1828, both 
parties engaging to treat at some future and con¬ 
venient period, either between themselves or in con¬ 
cert with other maritime powers, for insuring just 
protection and freedom to neutral navigation and 
commerce, and which may, at the same time, advance 
the cause of civilization and humanity. 

For various reasons it is inconvenient here to speak 
of the impressment of seamen on board of American 


3 So 


A MERIC. A N DIPL OMA C \'. 


ships, and of the infringement of neutral rights by the 
orders in council and by the French decrees, which led 
to the war between the United States and Great Brit¬ 
ain of 1812. Our diplomatic efforts at that time, and 
even later, were chiefly in the way of protests, and the 
question of impressment was only finally settled by the 
treaty between the United States and Great Britain 
of 1863, modified by that of 1871 on the subject of 
naturalization. During the war of 1812 prize courts in 
the United States enforced the generally acknowledged 
rule of international law that enemies’ goods in neu¬ 
tral vessels were liable to capture and confiscation, ex¬ 
cept as to such powers with whom we had stipulated 
the contrary rule that free ships should make free goods. 

During the war between France and Spain the 
French government proposed not to capture Spanish 
marine ships, and in an official proclamation of April 
20, 1823, it was stated that the King only considered 
as enemies of France pirates and Spanish corsairs. 
These alone were the object of surveillance of the 
vessels commanded by the officers of the- military 
marine. Apparently the French did not persist in 
this mode of action, for in the treaty concluded after 
the war there was an arrangement for indemnity for 
the prizes taken from each other during the war.* 

* See Ch. de Boeck, De la profirMte privee cnnemie sous 
pavilion ennemi , p. 97, Paris, 1882 ; Lawrence’s Wheaton, 
p. 630. 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


381 


The French proclamation, however, was made the 
basis of action by our Government, and President 
Monroe, in 1823, issued instructions to our ministers 
at Paris, London, and St. Petersburg to propose the 
abolition in future hostilities of all private war at sea. 

These instructions were probably not so much the 
work of President Monroe as of the Secretary of 
State, Mr. John Quincy Adams. Starting with the 
proposal to abolish the slave-trade, Mr. Adams sent a 
draft of a convention, to be concluded with England 
and other maritime powers, the prime object of which 
was to take the first steps toward the general aboli¬ 
tion by all nations of private war upon the sea. In 
his despatch to Mr. Rush, July 28, 1823, Mr. Adams 
said : 

“ The result of the abolition of private maritime war would 
be the coincident abolition of maritime neutrality. By this 
the neutral nations would be the principal losers, and sensible 
as we are of this we are still anxious, from higher motives than 
mere commercial gain, that the principle should be universally 
adopted. We are willing that the world, in common with our¬ 
selves, should gain in peace whatever we may lose in profit.” 

The British government evaded the question. Mr. 
Rush was empowered to treat of other matters as 
well, and was unwilling to consider the general mari¬ 
time questions without taking into action that of im¬ 
pressment. This England absolutely refused to con¬ 
sider, and at the same time declined to discuss the 


382 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


question of the abolition of privateering without dis¬ 
cussing the other maritime questions, so that there 
was a dead-lock.* Chateaubriand, in replying to Mr. 
Sheldon, our charge d’affaires at Paris, was appar¬ 
ently willing to accede to this proposal provided all 
governments did the same. He said : 

“If the trial successfully made by France can induce all 
governments to agree on the general principle which shall 
place wise limits to maritime operations, and be in accordance 
with the sentiments of humanity, his Majesty will congratulate 
himself still more in having given the salutary example, and in 
having proved that, without compromising the success of war, 
its scourge can be abated.” 

Count Nesselrode, in reply to Mr. Middleton, said : 

“ The principle will not be of great utility except so far as it 
shall have a general application.” 

The Emperor sympathizes with the opinions and wishes of 
the United States, and “ As soon as the powers whose consent 
he considers as indispensable, shall have shown the same dis¬ 
position, he will not be wanting in authorizing his ministers to 
discuss the different articles of an act which would be a crown 
of glory to modern diplomacy.” f 

The negotiation with Russia went on through dif¬ 
ferent ministers—Randolph, Buchanan, and Wilkins 
—to the end of 1835, but the reply was always in the 
same sense, that a general understanding was neces- 

* Congress. Doc., Senate, 18th Congress, 2d Session, Confi¬ 
dential. 

f H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 3, 33d Congress, 1st Session. 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


383 


sary before making any special treaties. Attempts to 
renew negotiations on this subject with Great Britain 
were made by Mr. Gallatin in 1826, and Mr. Barbour 
in 1828, but without success. 

The rules with regard to the duties of neutrals dur¬ 
ing war are now very strict ; but it was received for¬ 
merly that neutral subjects could command and own 
privateers, provided that they possessed letters of 
marque from one of the belligerent states. In order 
to guard against this, the United States, from the 
very beginning, inserted in its treaties with foreign 
powers stipulations that if any citizen or subject of 
either of the contracting parties took a commission or 
letters of marque for the purpose of privateering 
against the other who was at war, it should be treated 
as piracy. Such treaties were made with France in 
1778; with the Netherlands in 1782; with Sweden 
in 1783, renewed in 1816 and again in 1827; with 
Prussia in 1785, renewed in 1799, and again in 1828; 
with Great Britain in 1794; with Spain in 1795 ; with 
Colombia in 1824; with Brazil in 1828; with Chili 
in 1832 ; with Guatemala in 1849; and with Peru in 
1851. Some of these treaties have now expired, 
especially those with England and France. In 1797 
the United States passed a law to prevent citizens of 
the United States from privateering against nations 
in amity with, or against citizens of the United 
States. This was repeaUd in 1818; but the article 


3§4 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


with regard to privateering against citizens of the 
United States was re-enacted. The substance of the 
provisions with regard to privateering against friendly 
nations was, however, retained in other words : for any 
person within the United States was prohibited from 
fitting out any ship or vessel to cruise or commit hos¬ 
tilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of 
any power or state with whom the United States are 
at peace. 

During our war with Mexico there was great ap¬ 
prehension lest letters of marque should be accepted 
by the subjects of neutral states, although England 
and France expressly prohibited their subjects from 
accepting them, and the general laws of most other 
powers were to the same effect. President Polk, in 
his message of December, 1846, announced that he 
had called the attention of the Spanish government 
to the provision of the treaty of 1795 on this subject, 
and at the same time recommended to Congress to 
provide for the trial and punishment as pirates of any 
Spanish subjects who should be found guilty of pri¬ 
vateering against the United States. It had been 
rumored that the United States would hang as 
pirates all foreigners on board of Mexican privateers ; 
and the British minister at Washington, although 
Great Britain had forbid its subjects to engage in such 
enterprises, expressed to our Government the expecta¬ 
tion that this threat would not be put in execution 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


3*5 


against any British subjects. By an act passed March 
3, 1847, it was declared piracy for any subject or citi¬ 
zen of a foreign state to make war against the United 
States or cruise against their vessels or property con¬ 
trary to the provisions of treaties existing with that 
state of which they were subjects and citizens. This 
was certainly a great extension of the crime of piracy 
as known to international law. 

At the outbreak of the Crimean War Austria and 
Spain issued declarations forbidding their subjects 
from taking letters of marque from any foreign power, 
and forbidding the use of their ports to privateers. 
Denmark, Sweden, and Norway followed this so far 
as to prohibit privateers from anchoring in their ports. 
England and France, by a declaration made on March 
28, 1854, stated that for the present they would waive 
a portion of their belligerent rights; that they would 
waive the rights of seizing enemy’s property, laden on 
board of neutral vessels, unless contraband of war; that 
they would not claim the confiscation of neutral prop¬ 
erty not being contraband of war found on enemies’ 
ships ; and being desirous to lessen as much as pos¬ 
sible the evils of war, would restrict their operations 
to the regularly organized forces of the country, and 
would not issue letters of marque for the commission¬ 
ing of privateers. Lord Clarendon, in conversation 
with Mr. Buchanan, our minister to London, spoke 
in very complimentary terms of the treaties of the 
2 5 


386 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


United States with different nations with regard to 
letters of marque; and while he did not propose the 
conclusion of a treaty for the suppression of privateer¬ 
ing, expressed a strong opinion against the practice as 
inconsistent with modern civilization. On another 
occasion he spoke in high terms of our neutrality law 
of 1818, and pronounced it superior to the English, 
especially with regard to privateers. Mr. Buchanan 
replied to Lord Clarendon that 

“ It did not seem to him possible under existing circumstances 
for the United States to agree to the suppression of privateer¬ 
ing, unless the naval powers of the world would go one step 
further and consent that war against private property should 
be abolished altogether upon the ocean, as it had already been 
upon the land. There was really nothing different in princi¬ 
ple or morality between the act of a regular cruiser and that 
of a privateer in robbing a merchant vessel upon the ocean, 
and confiscating the property of private individuals on board, 
for the benefit of the captor.” 

Mr. Marcy, the Secretary of State, wrote to Mr. 
Buchanan that he did not think that the stipulations 
about letters of marque would be inserted in any new 
treaties ; not that the Government would not prohibit, 
as far as possible, its own citizens from accepting 
letters of marque from other powers; but in case it 
was itself engaged in war it did not wish to preclude 
itself from resorting to the merchant marine of the 
country. 

Mr. Marcy, in replying to the note of Mr. Cramp- 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


337 


ton, the British minister, enclosing the declaration, 
expressed the satisfaction of the United States 

“ That the principle that free ships make free goods, which 
the United States have so long and so strenuously contended 
for as a neutral right, and in which some of the leading powers 
of Europe have concurred, is to have a qualified sanction by 
the practical observance of it in the present war by both Great 
Britain and France—two of the most powerful nations of Eu¬ 
rope.” 

This satisfaction “ Would have been enhanced if the rule al¬ 
luded to had been announced as one which would be observed 
not only in the present, but in every future war in which Great 
Britain shall be a party. The unconditional sanction of this 
rule by the British and French governments, together with the 
practical observance of it in the present war, would cause it 
henceforth to be recognized throughout the civilized world as 
a general principle of international law. This Government, 
from its very commencement, has labored for its recognition 
as a neutral right. It has incorporated it in many of its 
treaties with foreign powers. To settle the principle that 
free ships make free goods, except articles contraband of war, 
and to prevent it from being called again in question from any 
quarter, or under any circumstances, the United States are 
desirous to unite with other powers in a declaration that it 
shall be observed by each hereafter as a rule of international 
law.” * 

What we maintained was that the right then exist¬ 
ing under international law should not be waived 
from time to time, but should be surrendered alto¬ 
gether, and we were unwilling to accept anything less. 

At the outbreak of the war Russia had extended 

* Lawrence’s Wheaton, p. 771, note. 


3 88 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


certain privileges to Turkish vessels in Russian ports \ 
but as these had not been reciprocated Russia in¬ 
sisted on asserting the rights of war to their whole 
extent against Turkish vessels, against Turkish goods, 
and against neutral goods on Turkish vessels. When 
England and France became engaged in war, Russia 
published declarations of a similar nature to those 
published by those powers, declaring that enemy’s 
goods in neutral vessels would be regarded as invio¬ 
lable, and the subjects of the enemy on board neutral 
vessels would not be molested. Mr. Marcy, in writ¬ 
ing to Mr. Seymour, our minister to St. Petersburg, 
called attention to what had been done by Great 
Britain and France with regard to free ships making 
free goods, and spoke of the efforts of the United 
States in this direction, adding, 

il This seems to be a most favorable time for such a salutary 
change. From the earliest period of this Government it has 
made strenuous efforts to have the rule that free ships make 
free goods, except contraband articles, adopted as a principle 
of international law ; but Great Britain insisted on a different 
rule. These efforts, consequently, proved unavailing ; and 
now it cannot be recognized, and a strict observance of it se¬ 
cured without a conventional regulation among the maritime 
powers. This Government is desirous to have all nations agree 
in a declaration that this rule shall hereafter be observed by 
them respectively, when they shall happen to be involved in 
any war, and that as neutrals they will insist upon it as a neu¬ 
tral right.” * 

* H. R. Ex. Doc., 103, 33d Congress, 1st Session. 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


389 


Our ideas were so well received by Russia at that 
time that on July 22, 1854, a treaty was concluded at 

Washington between the United States and Russia 
by which 

“ The two high contracting parties recognized, as permanent 
and immutable, the following principles, to wit : i. That free 
ships make free goods—that is to say, that the effects or goods 
belonging to subjects or citizens of a power or state at war are 
fiee from capture and confiscation when found on board of 
neutral vessels, with the exception of articles contraband of 
war. 2. That the property of neutrals on board an enemy’s 
vessel is not subject to confiscation, unless the same be con¬ 
traband of war. They engage to apply these principles to the 
commerce and navigation of all such states as shall consent to 
adopt them, on their part, as permanent and immutable.” 

Similar treaties were made with the Two Sicilies 
on January 13, 1855, and with Peru on July 26, 1856. 

In reporting the treaty with Russia to Congress, 
in his annual message in December, 1854, President 
Pierce said : 

“ The King of Prussia entirely approves of the project of a 
treaty to the same effect, submitted to him, but proposes an 
additional article providing for the renunciation of privateer¬ 
ing. Such an article, for most obvious reasons, is much de¬ 
sired from nations having naval establishments large in pro¬ 
portion to their foreign commerce. If it were adopted as an 
international rule, the commerce of a nation having compara¬ 
tively a small naval force would be very much at the mercy 
of its enemy in case of war with a power of decided naval 
superiority. The bare statement of the condition in which 


390 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


the United States would be placed after having surrendered 
the right to resort to privateers in the event of war with a bel¬ 
ligerent of naval supremacy, will show that this Government 
could never listen to such a proposition. The navy of the first 

maritime power in Europe is at least ten times as large as that 

\ 

of the United States. The foreign commerce of the nations is 
nearly equal, and about equally exposed to hostile depreda¬ 
tions. In war between that power and the United States, 
without resort, on our part, to our mercantile marine, the 
means of our enemy to inflict injury upon our commerce 
would be tenfold greater than ours to retaliate. . . . The 

proposal to surrender the right to employ privateers is pro¬ 
fessedly founded upon the principle that private property of 
unoffending non-combatants, though enemies, should be ex¬ 
empt from the ravages of war ; but the proposed surrender 
goes little way in carrying out that principle, which equally 
requires that such private property should not be seized or 
molested by national ships of war. Should the leading powers 
of Europe concur in proposing, as a rule of international law, 
to exempt private property upon the ocean from seizure by 
public armed cruisers, as well as by privateers, the United 
States will readily meet them upon that broad ground.” 

The Chamber of Commerce of New York, on April 
6, 1854, passed a series of resolutions which, though 
they differed somewhat from the policy of the Gov¬ 
ernment, yet aided in strengthening its hands. They 
were in substance that the employment of privateers 
was contrary to all sound principles of morality, 
justice, and humanity ; that the ravages caused only 
the ruin of private persons, without any advantage to 
the nation ; that the United States ought to co- 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


391 


operate with the efforts of European powers for the 
abolition of privateering; and that the example set 
in the principles proclaimed in the treaty of the 
United States with Prussia of 1785 should be sup¬ 
ported by the Chamber. 

At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to 
the conclusion of the treaty which ended the Crimean 
War, a declaration of principles was signed on April 
16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the powers repre¬ 
sented there, which contained four articles : 

“First, Privateering is and remains abolished. 

“ Second , The neutral flag covers enemies’ goods, with the 
exception of contraband of war. 

u Third , Neutral goods, except of contraband of war, are 
not liable to capture under an enemy’s flag. 

“ Fourth , Blockades, to be binding, must be effective—that 
is to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent ac¬ 
cess to the coast of the enemy.” 

The adherence of other powers was requested to 
these principles. The Belgian government proposed, 
in order to give these doctrines greater force and so¬ 
lidity, that they should be put in the form of a treaty 
or convention ; but this was opposed by the English 
government, which feared difficulties in Parliament. 
These difficulties were not slow in coming, and they 
will be spoken of presently. The adherence, however, 
was given in full by all the states that now compose 
the German empire, although this was, in general, a 


392 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


mere formality, as most of these states had no sea¬ 
ports ; by Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chili, the Argen¬ 
tine Confederation, Denmark, Ecuador, the Italian 
states, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, New Grenada, the 
Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Salvador, Sweden and 
Norway, Switzerland, and Uruguay. Spain and Mex¬ 
ico, wishing to preserve the right of privateering, re¬ 
fused to adhere to the first article ; but declared their 
willingness to accept the three others. The action 
of the United States gave rise to much comment. 

It had been inserted in the protocol of the proceed¬ 
ings, although not in the declaration itself, that this 

“ Declaration was indivisible, and that the powers which signed 
it, or should accede to it, could not thereafter enter into any 
agreement in regard to the application of the maritime law in 
time of war, which did not rest upon the four principles Avhich 
are the object of the declaration.” 

It was admitted, however, on the motion of the 
Russian plenipotentiaries, that this provision could 
not have any retroactive power or invalidate any ex¬ 
isting convention, and it was also conceded “ that it 
would not be obligatory on the signers of the declara¬ 
tion to maintain the principle of the abolition of 
privateering against those powers which did not ac¬ 
cede to it.” 

On July 14, 1856, Mr. Marcy sent a circular to the 
American ministers abroad informing them that the 
declaration of Paris had been submitted to our Gov- 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


393 


ernment for adoption; and on July 28, 1856, he made 
a formal reply to the French minister, Count Sartiges, 
objecting to the indivisibility of the four articles, for 
two of which the United States had for a long time 
been in negotiation. He thought that the fourth 
article on blockade did not relieve the subject from 
the difficulty in determining what fulfilled the con¬ 
ditions of the definition. As to the first article, with 
regard to privateering, Mr. Marcy maintained that the 
right to resort to privateers is as incontestable as any 
other right appertaining to belligerents ; and reasoned 
that the effect of the declaration would be to increase 
the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and 
France, without even benefiting the general cause of 
civilization; while if public ships retained the right of 
capturing private property, the United States, which 
had at that time a large mercantile marine and a com¬ 
paratively small navy, would be deprived of all means 
of retaliation. Mr. Marcy said : 

“ A predominant power on the ocean is still more menacing 
to the well-being of other nations than a predominant power 
on land. For that reason all nations are equally interested in 
rejecting a measure tending to favor the permanent establish¬ 
ment of such a domination, whether such a domination should 
belong to one power or to several. The losses which would 
probably be the result of abandoning the domination of the 
sea either to one nation owning a powerful navy, or to several, 
are, above all, due to the custom of submitting private property 
on the ocean to capture by the belligerent powers. Justice 


394 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


and humanity demand that this custom be abandoned, and 
that the rule in regard to property on land be extended to that 
on the sea. The President proposes, therefore, to add to the 
first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress 
of Paris the following words : ‘ And that the private property of 
the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall 
be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other 
belligerent, except it be contraband.’ ” 

Theoretical writers on international law have gener¬ 
ally blamed the conduct of our Government in thus 
apparently rejecting principles which it was one of 
the first to propose, and have laid great stress on the 
wrongfulness and abuses of privateering. It is, how¬ 
ever, difficult to see how, except in the general want 
of discipline and in the predatory habits which it en¬ 
courages, privateering is worse than the use of public 
ships for the capture of private property. In fact, 
those nations who have given up privateering have 
considered themselves perfectly justified in converting 
a merchant vessel into a ship of the navy by the sim¬ 
ple process of giving her a regular commission and 
putting on board a naval officer as captain. We- al¬ 
most forget now that, even so lately as 1856, we had 
one of the largest commercial navies of the world, 
and a foreign trade which it was necessary to protect 
at all hazards. The statesmen who then had the di¬ 
rection of our Government saw the exigencies of the 
situation far more clearly than the writers on interna¬ 
tional law. Events, as will be seen, have shown that 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


395 


they were justified in their course, and that our refusal 
to accept the declaration of Paris has brought the 
world nearer to the principles which we proposed, 
which became known as the “ Marcy amendment 
for the abolition of war against private property on 
the seas.” 

There was another difficulty, which governments 
gradually saw, that the President had no constitu¬ 
tional power to accept the declaration of Paris unless 
it were put into the form of a treaty approved by 
the Senate, and duly ratified. Our courts, before 
whom all prize cases would come, would have refused 
to accept as a rule of law any declaration made by 
the President in another form, unless there were also 
a law or a treaty to that effect. 

Among the minor states of Europe there was com¬ 
plete unanimity and a general readiness to accept our 
amendment to the rules; but before giving a formal 
reply they naturally waited the action of the great 
powers who had signed the declaration. Russia im¬ 
mediately consented. Prince Gortchakof immedi¬ 
ately instructed Baron Brunnow on the subject of 
Mr. Marcys note, 

“ In which the American proposition is developed in that cau¬ 
tious and lucid manner which compels conversion. The Sec¬ 
retary of State does not argue the exclusive interests of the 
United States ; his plea is put for the whole of mankind. It 
grows out of a generous thought, the embodiment of which 
rests upon arguments which admit of no reply. The attention 


396 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


of the Emperor has in an eminent degree been enlisted by the 
overtures of the American cabinet. In his view of the ques¬ 
tion they deserve to be taken into serious consideration by the 
powers which signed the treaty of Paris. They would honor 
themselves should they, by a resolution taken in common, and 
proclaimed to the world, apply to private property on the seas 
the principle of inviolability which they have ever professed for 
it on land. They would crown the work of pacification which 
has called them together, and give it an additional grant of 
permanence.” 

Baron Brunnow was instructed to say to the French 
Minister of Foreign Affairs “ that should the Amer¬ 
ican proposition become a subject of common deliber¬ 
ation among the powers it would receive a most deci¬ 
sive support” from Russia. “You are even author¬ 
ized to declare that our August Master would take 
the initiative of this question.”* Count Walewski, 
the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed our 
Government that France would agree to the declara¬ 
tion as modified by us, although a formal assent was 

deferred in order to consult the other parties to the 

1 

treaty. Prussia, in May, 1857, also accepted Mr. 
Marcy’s amendment, and said that “ if this proposition 
should become the subject of a collective deliberation, 
it can rely on the most marked support of Prussia, 
which earnestly desires that other states will unite in 
a determination, the benefits of which will apply to 
all nations.” Count Cavour gave the amendment his 

* Lawrence’s Wheaton, p. 640, note. 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


397 


cordial approval, and regarded it as a very just and 
logical deduction from the original ideas of the Paris 
Congress, and said that if the Congress should reas¬ 
semble, he would there be a warm advocate for it. 

The only decided opposition to the American pro¬ 
posal came from England. Lord Palmerston talked 
both ways at different times. The policy of these 
rules was several times discussed in Parliament, and 
in a debate in the House of Lords on May 22, 1856, 
Lord Clarendon being attacked for having subscribed 
to the principle that free ships make free goods, de¬ 
fended himself on the ground that the declaration 
must be taken as a whole or not at all, and that if 
the United States accepted it, they must agree to 
the abandonment of privateering, which was to Eng¬ 
land more than an equivalent for a claim (i.e., taking 
enemy’s property in neutral vessels) which she could 
not maintain ; that privateering must become more 
important than heretofore, as commerce carried on 
in sailing vessels would be absolutely at the mercy of 
a privateer moved by steam, however small. The 
truth of this last remark of Lord Clarendon was 
abundantly proved during our civil war. Lord Har- 
rowby said that England had suffered more injury 
from privateering than she could inflict, and that the 
United States would derive no benefit from the 
treaty if they did not agree to abandon privateering.* 

* Lawrence’s Wheaton, pp. 637, 638, note. 


39§ 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


However, before the English government had 
made any formal reply to our proposition, President 
Buchanan had succeeded President Pierce, and Mr. 
Marcy had been replaced by General Cass. Instruc¬ 
tions were given to our ministers to suspend negotia¬ 
tions, and the Marcy amendment was practically 
withdrawn. The reasons which prompted our Gov¬ 
ernment to this course are difficult to understand ; 
but General Cass, in a circular of June 27, 1859, 
called the attention of European governments to the 
provisions of the declaration of Paris which affected 
enemy’s property on board of neutral vessels, and in¬ 
sisted that the United States should have the bene¬ 
fit of this rule whether they had acceded to the decla¬ 
ration or not. The Italian war had at that time just 
broken out. England, it is understood, still main¬ 
tains that, not being a party to the declaration, we 
have no right to the advantages of it in any war in 
which she should be a party and we should be neu¬ 
trals. 

The proposition, which we had for the moment 
abandoned, was revived in 1858 by Brazil, which in 
a note to the French minister at Rio de Janeiro, 
dated March 18, 1858, proposed that “all private 
property, without exception, of merchant vessels, 
should be placed under the protection of maritime 
law, and be free from the attacks of cruisers of war.” 

At the beginning of our civil war, there being ap- 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS . 


399 


prehension that the Confederate States might issue 
letters of marque, Mr. Seward thought that, if we 
should then accept the declaration of Paris, we could 
induce foreign governments to treat privateers coming 
from the Confederate States as pirates. He there¬ 
fore, on April 24, 1861, addressed a circular on the 
subject to our ministers abroad, in which, while ex¬ 
pressing his preference for the Marcy amendment, he 
said : 

“ Prudence and humanity combine in persuading the Presi¬ 
dent, under the circumstances, that it is wise to secure the 
lesser good offered by the Paris Congress, without waiting in¬ 
definitely in hope to obtain the great one offered to the mari¬ 
time nations by the President of the United States.* 

Both England and France refused to accept the re¬ 
nunciation of privateering on the part of the United 
States, if it were coupled with the condition that it 
should be enforced on the Confederate States, holding 
that such action on their part would be a breach of 
neutrality and a participation in the civil disturbances 
of this country. There was, however, a disposition on 
the part of those governments to waive the privateer¬ 
ing clause of the declaration, notwithstanding the in¬ 
divisibility of the articles previously insisted upon, 
provided that the United States would accept the 
other three. Mr. Seward insisted that the tender of 
our adhesion to the declaration was “ pure and 

* Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861. 


400 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


simple,” and instructed Mr. Dayton to renew it in the 
form originally prescribed. The result was that the 
negotiations failed. Subsequently, when, on account 
of the Trent affair, it was feared that there would 
be war between the United States and Great Britain, 
Lord Lyons was instructed to say that Great Britain 
was willing to abolish privateering as between the 
two nations, if the United States would make the 
same engagement. 

Meanwhile the principle of the immunity of private 
property at sea made headway in Europe. During 
the Italian war of 1859, all parties being signers of the 
treaty of Paris, the rules were strictly maintained ; but 
in the treaty of Zurich, November 10, 1859, it was 
stipulated that, as an extension of the previous rules, 
Austrian vessels which had been captured and not yet 
condemned would be restored. Similar proceedings 
took place after the Mexican war, by a decree of the 
Emperor Napoleon on March 29, 1865. At the out¬ 
break of the Danish war, in 1864, first Denmark and 
then Prussia and Austria, applied the old laws about 
prizes. But in the treaty Denmark agreed to restore 
the merchant ships captured, or pay for them. Thus, 
as Bluntschli says, “ this treaty implicitly recognized 
the doctrine that, even in maritime war, private prop¬ 
erty ought to be respected.” At the beginning of the 
war of 1866 the principles of Paris were carried still 
further, Austria, Prussia, and Italy all agreeing not 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


401 


only to give a special protection to neutral vessels, 
but to exempt from capture even enemy’s vessels 
which should not be carrying contraband of war, or 
trying to violate the blockade. At various times 
chambers of commerce of maritime cities—English, 
German, French, Belgian, and Danish—had passed 
resolutions in favor of the immunity of private prop¬ 
erty ; and on April 18, 1868, on the proposition of 
Dr. Aegidi, the Federal Diet of North Germany 
passed almost unanimously the following resolution : 

“ The Federal Chancellor is invited to profit by the friendly 
relations at present maintained with foreign powers to begin 
negotiations for maintaining, by means of treaties, the freedom 
of private property on the seas in time of war, and make it the 
recognized principle of international law.” 

The Federal Council accepted the vote of the Diet, 
and invited the Chanceller to act according to the 
resolution which had been adopted. In consequence, 
according to the ProvinziaVsche Correspondenz of 
Berlin, of August 26, 1869, the German minister at 
Washington was instructed to begin negotiations on 
this subject with the United States. 

At the beginning of the war between Germany and 
France, in 1870, M. Garnier-Pages, deputy of Paris, 
proposed, in the French legislature, that the capture 
of hostile commercial vessels should be abolished, as 
well as the blockade or the bombardment of com¬ 
mercial and open towns, the right of attack remain- 
26 


402 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


ing limited only to military ports and towns. This 
law was, however, only to be applied in cases of re¬ 
ciprocity. Although urgency was then granted to 
this proposition, the sudden revolution prevented its 
consideration. The Germans, on their side, by a royal 
ordinance of July 18, 1870, declared that French com¬ 
mercial ships would not be captured unless under the 
conditions in which neutral ships might be captured. 
There was no question about reciprocity. Selfish 
reasons, that is, a large commercial marine, a small 
navy, and an undefended coast may have entered 
into this; but the declaration was certainly an ad¬ 
vance in international law. France did not recipro¬ 
cate in exempting German commercial ships from 
capture, and on January 12, 1871, information was 
given to neutral countries that this declaration would 
be recalled after four weeks’ delay, in order to protect 
neutral property which might in consequence of the 
declaration have been placed on French ships. Hos¬ 
tilities had ceased, however, before the four weeks 
had expired ; and the threat of reprisals was there¬ 
fore without result. 

A sufficient time having elapsed after our civil war 
for us to forget the disturbance which it had caused 
us in every way, we again took up this principle, 
which we had been ready to relax in a moment of 
need. By a treaty of commerce concluded with Italy 
on February 26, 1871, we stipulated for all that we 


NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 


403 


had ever maintained. By Article 12 it was agreed 
that private property should be exempt from capture 
or seizure on the high seas, or elsewhere, by the armed 
vessels or by the military forces of either party, ex¬ 
cepting, of course, contraband of war, and vessels at¬ 
tempting to enter blockaded ports. By Articles 13 
and 14 blockades were more exactly defined, and the 
category of contraband of war was limited to arms and 
munitions by Article 15. In Article 16 it was recog¬ 
nized that citizens of either country may trade with 
the enemies of the other ; that free ships make free 
goods, contraband excepted, but that this stipulation 
shall be applied only to those powers who recognize 
the principle. Stricter regulations were also made 
for the exercise of the right of search. 




VIII. 


THE FISHERIES. 

Treaty of 1783.—Treaty of Ghent.—Our Contention.—Treaty 
of 1818.—Difficulties, Complaints, and Seizures.—Diplo¬ 
matic Correspondence.—Treaty of 1854.—Its Abrogation. 
—New Difficulties.—Treaty of 1871.—The Halifax Award. 
—Abrogation of Treaty.—Temporary Prolongation of 
Privileges.—Present State of the Question. 

The question of the fisheries on the coasts of British 
North America is one which has occupied our Gov¬ 
ernment since its foundation, and which, though sev¬ 
eral times settled by temporary arrangement, has now 
reached a point, through the lapse of these arrange¬ 
ments and the abrogation of treaties, where it is again 
under the actual consideration of our Government. 

By Article 3 of the treaty of September 3, 1783, 
which recognized the independence of the United 
States, 

“ It is agreed that the people of the United States shall con¬ 
tinue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind 
on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfound¬ 
land, also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all places in the 
sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time 
heretofore to fish ; and also that the inhabitants of the United 
States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part 


THE FISHERIES. 


405 


of the coasts of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall choose, 
but not to dry or cure the same on that island ; and also on the 
coasts, bays, and creeks, and all other of his British Majesty’s 
dominions in America ; and that the American fishermen shall 
have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, 
harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and 
Labrador, as long as the same shall remain unsettled ; but as 
soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not 
be lawful for said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settle¬ 
ment without a previous agreement for that purpose with the 
inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.” 

In the preceding negotiations an effort was made to 
induce the American commissioners to give up the 
fishery rights. John Adams said, “ I will never put 
my hand to any article without satisfaction about the 
fisheries,” and the British negotiators yielded. 

It will be observed that the right to take fish on the 
banks, which is a deep-sea or off-shore fishery, far away 
from any territorial jurisdiction, was recognized as a 
right inherent and belonging to the inhabitants of the 
United States, as indeed to any other people. The 
right to take fish in the deep waters of the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence was also recognized, apart from any 
claims to territorial jurisdiction over that Gulf by 
drawing a line from headland to headland. We 
claimed that the liberty which was secured to the in¬ 
habitants of the United States to take fish on the 
coasts of Newfoundland, under the limitation of not 
drying or curing the same on that island, and also on 


40 6 


AMERICAN DIPL OMA C Y. 


the other coasts, bays, and creeks, together with the 
limited rights of drying or curing fish on the coasts of 
Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, were 
not created or conferred by that treaty, but were sim¬ 
ply recognized by it as already existing. They had 
been enjoyed before the Revolution by the Americans 
in common with other subjects of Great Britain, and 
had, indeed, been conquered, from the French chiefly, 
through the valor and the sacrifices of the colonies of 
New England and New York. The treaty was there¬ 
fore considered analogous to a deed of partition. It 
defined the boundaries between the two countries and 
all the rights and privileges belonging to them. We 
insisted that the article respecting fisheries was there¬ 
fore to be regarded as identical with the possession 
of land or the demarcation of boundary. We also 
claimed that the treaty being one that recognized in¬ 
dependence, conceded territory, and defined bound¬ 
aries, belonged to that class which is permanent in its 
nature and is not affected by subsequent suspension 
of friendly relations. 

The English, however, insisted that this treaty was 
not a unity ; that while some of its provisions were 
permanent, other stipulations were temporary and 
could be abrogated, and that, in fact, they were abro¬ 
gated by the war of 1812 ; that the very difference of 
the language used showed that while the rights of 
deep-sea fishing were permanent, the liberties of fish- 


THE FISHERIES. 


407 


ing were created and conferred by that treaty, and had 
therefore been taken away by the war. These were 
the two opposite views of the respective governments 
at the conferences which ended in the treaty of Ghent 
of 1814. At the very beginning the British commis¬ 
sioners stated that these fishing privileges would not 
be renewed without some equivalent. The American 
commissioners, who had no special instructions on 
this subject, insisted that these rights and privileges 
still existed in spite of the war, and proposed either 
to incorporate into the treaty articles concerning the 
American right to fish in British waters and the Brit¬ 
ish right to navigate the Mississippi, just as they had 
existed in the treaty of 1783, or else to omit them en¬ 
tirely. This latter proposition was accepted by the 
British commissioners, and for that reason the treaty 
of Ghent is entirely silent as to the fishery question.* 
Professor John Norton Pomeroy, in criticising in 1871 
the arguments of the American commissioners, 
thinks that they did not make the best of their case. 
He agrees with the British claim that these liberties 
of fishing were not in the nature of demarcation of 
boundaries or their appurtenances, but insists that 
they were in the nature of a servitude, and of a per¬ 
manent servitude. He says: 

* In this connection it is interesting to read the pamphlet 
of Mr. John Quincy Adams, called the Duplicate Letters, pub¬ 
lished in 1822. 


4 o 8 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


“ The third article of the treaty of 1783 is in the nature of an 
executed grant. It created and conferred at one blow rights 
of property perfect in their nature, and as permanent as the 
dominion over the national soil. These rights are held by the 
inhabitants of the United States, and are to be exercised in 
British territorial waters. Unaffected by the war of 1812, they 
still exist in full force and vigor.” * 

Theoretically Mr. Pomeroy’s doctrine may be correct; 
but unfortunately it was never put forward or insisted 
upon by our Government. 

In consequence of conflicts arising between our 
fishermen and the British authorities, our point of 
view was very strongly maintained by Mr. Adams in 
his correspondence with the British Foreign Office, 
and finally, on October 20, 1818, Mr. Rush, then our 
minister at London, assisted by Mr. Gallatin, suc¬ 
ceeded in signing a treaty, which among other things 
settled our rights and privileges by the first article, as 
follows : 

“ Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty 
claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to 
take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and 
creeks of his Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, it is 
agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabi¬ 
tants of the said United States shall have forever, in common 
with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, the liberty of tak¬ 
ing fish of any kind on that part of the southern coast of New¬ 
foundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau 
Islands ; on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland 


* American Law Review, v., p. 426 . 


THE FISHERIES. 


409 


from the said Cape Ray to the Ouirpon Islands ; on the shores 
of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, har¬ 
bors, and creeks from Mont Joly, on the southern coast of 
Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle, and thence 
northwardly indefinitely along the coast. And that the Amer¬ 
ican fishermen shall have liberty forever to dry and cure fish 
in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks in the southern 
part of Newfoundland herein-before described, and of the 
coasts of Labrador; but as soon as the same, or any portion 
thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for said fishermen 
to dry or cure fish at such portion, so settled, without previous 
agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, 
or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby 
renounces forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed claimed by 
the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within 
three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or har¬ 
bors of his Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America not in¬ 
cluded in the above-mentioned limits. Provided , however, 
That the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such 
bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages 
therein, of purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for 
no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such 
restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent their taking, dry¬ 
ing, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever 
abusing the privileges hereby secured to them.” 

The American plenipotentiaries evidently labored 
to obtain as extensive a district of territory as possible 
for in-shore fishing, and were willing to give up privi¬ 
leges, then apparently of small amount, but now 
much more important, than of using other bays and 
harbors for shelter and kindred purposes. For that 
reason they acquiesced in omitting the word “bait ” in 


4io 


A MERIC A M DIPL OMA C V. 


the first sentence of the proviso after “ water.” The 
proviso as at first proposed had read : 

“ Provided, however, that American fishermen shall be per¬ 
mitted to enter such bays and harbors for the purpose only of 
obtaining shelter, wood, water, and bait.” 

The power of obtaining bait for use in the deep- 
sea fisheries is one which our fishermen were after¬ 
ward very anxious to secure. But the mackerel 
fisheries in those waters did not begin until several 
years later. The only contention then was about the 
cod fisheries. The renunciation of any liberty to 
take, dry, or cure fish in territory not included within 
the limits mentioned, was inserted by the American 
commissioners much against the wish of the British, 
as they desired to prevent any implication that the 
fisheries secured to us were a new grant, and in order 
to show that we still continued to maintain that they 
had been perpetually secured to us by the treaty of 
I7 8 3- 

In 1819 Parliament passed a statute to carry" out 
the stipulations of the conventions of 1818, empower¬ 
ing the Privy Council to make such regulations and 
give such instructions as were deemed proper, and 
providing that any foreign vessel found fishing, or to 
have been fishing, or preparing to fish within three 
miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors outside of 
the limits specified in the treaty, might be seized and 
condemned; imposing fines for persons refusing to 


THE FISHERIES. 


411 

depart from such bays on being required to do so, or 
neglecting to conform to any of the regulations. Be¬ 
tween 1819 and 1854 the provincial legislatures 
adopted various laws relating to American fishermen, 
purporting to be based on the treaty of 1818, far 
more stringent and minute in their provisions than 
the imperial act, and in many respects, as our fisher¬ 
men and our Government have claimed, contrary to 
the treaty. Very many seizures and confiscations of 
American vessels by the British authorities took 
place on the following grounds: 1, fishing within 
the prescribed limits; 2, anchoring or hovering in 
shore during calm weather without any ostensible 
cause, having on board ample supplies of wood and 
water; 3, lying at anchor and remaining inside of 
bays to clean and pick fish ; 4, purchasing and bar¬ 
tering bait, and preparing to fish ; 5, selling goods 
and buying supplies; 6, landing and transshipping 
cargoes of fish. 

It will be seen that most of these difficulties arose 
from a change in the character of the fisheries. Cod, 
being caught on the banks, were seldom pursued 
within the three-mile limit. And yet it was to cod, 
and perhaps halibut, that all the early negotiations 
had referred. The mackerel fishing had now sprung 
up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and had proved ex¬ 
tremely profitable. This was at that time an in¬ 
shore fishery. 


412 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


More than that, vessels at various times have been 
seized for fishing within large bays, such as the Bay 
of Fundy, although ten or fifteen miles from shore. 
The expression of “ three marine miles from the 
coast,” as used in the treaty of 1818, was interpreted 
by us to mean three marine miles from the coast fol¬ 
lowing all its sinuosities. The English, on the other 
hand, claimed that this line should be measured at 
three miles’ distance from extreme headland to head¬ 
land, including all waters inside of this exterior 
boundary, and especially all bays and gulfs, whether 
great or small. Our claim seems first to have been 
presented to the British government in 1824, when 
we complained of interruptions to the taking and 
curing of fish in the Bay of Fundy by American citi¬ 
zens, and the seizure of their vessels. Mr. Addington 
replied in February, 1825, justifying such seizure on 
the ground that the fishing was within the limits of 
prohibition. The President, in 1840, communicated 
to Congress various documents relating to the arrest 
of vessels in 1839; and from that time until 1845 we 
had an elaborate diplomatic correspondence with 
Great Britain on this subject. On March 10, 1845, 
Lord Aberdeen announced to Mr. Everett that the 
British government did not admit the correctness of 
the construction put upon the treaty of 1818 by the 
United States, nor did it abandon its own interpre¬ 
tation ; but from considerations of comity it would 


THE FISHERIES. 


413 


relax its rights to the Bay of Fundy, but not to other 
bays. Mr. Everett refused to accept these conces¬ 
sions as a favor, but demanded them as a right. In 
1852 the British government declared its intention of 
enforcing its rights with greater strictness, and sent a 
squadron to the fishing grounds; but Lord Malmes¬ 
bury consented to leave the Bay of Fundy in the 
condition in which it had been placed by Lord Aber¬ 
deen in 1845. We based our arguments on the gen¬ 
eral principles of international law, which have been 
accepted by all except British authorities, and even 
by some of them. And our case was strengthened 
by the fact that in the treaty between Great Britain 
and France of August 3, 1839, stipulating for the 
right of fishing within a distance of three miles from 
low-water mark, the ninth article of that treaty pro¬ 
vided that “ this distance shall be measured in the 
case of bays, of which the opening shall not exceed 
ten miles, by a straight line drawn across from one 
cape to the other.” 

In 1853 a convention was made between Great 
Britain and the United States for referring various 
claims to a mixed commission for arbitration. One 
claim brought before this commission was that of the 
owners of the Washington, which had been seized in 
1843 while fishing in the Bay of Fundy. The com¬ 
missioners disagreed, but the umpire decided that as 
the Bay of Fundy is from sixty-five to seventy-five 


414 


A MERICA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


miles wide, and from one hundred and thirty to one 
hundred and forty miles long, it is not a British bay 
nor a bay within the meaning of the word as used in 
the treaty of 1818. 

So matters stood, when in 1854 a treaty was con¬ 
cluded at Washington by Mr. Marcy and Lord Elgin, 
the Governor-General of Canada, acting as British 
plenipotentiary, called the Reciprocity Treaty. By 
the first article it was agreed that 

“ In addition to the liberty secured to the United States fisher¬ 
men by the convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing, 
and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American 
colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States 
shall have, in common with the subjects of her Britannic 
Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, except shell¬ 
fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, 
and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince 
Edward’s Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, 
without being restricted to any distance from the shore ; with 
permission to land upon the coasts and shores of those colonies 
and the islands thereof, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, 
for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish ; pro¬ 
vided that, in so doing, they did not interfere with the rights 
of private property, or with British fishermen in the peaceable 
use of any part of said coast in their occupancy for the same 
purpose.” 

Under the liberal provisions of this treaty there was 
a cessation of the complaints of our fishermen ; but in 
1866 this Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated on the 
motion of the United States. It was maintained by 


THE FISHERIES. 


415 


our Government that in consequence of this abroga¬ 
tion the provisions of the treaty of 1818 again came 
into force. The claims on both sides, which had only 
been temporarily suspended by the Reciprocity Treaty, 
were also revived, and with them frequent disputes. 
The various laws of the provincial governments re¬ 
stricting the movements of American fishermen were 
revived by the Dominion act of May 22,. 1868, with 
its amendment of May 10, 1870; and even on January 
8, 1870, the Governor-General of Canada made an 
order “ that henceforth all foreign fishermen shall be 
prevented from fishing in the waters of Canada.” Mr. 
Fish, on May 31, 1870, called the attention of the 
British minister to the broad and illegal terms of this 
order, which directly contravened the treaty of 1818, 
and requested its modification. High commissioners 
met soon after in Washington, and after prolonged 
negotiations signed the treaty of 1871. The eigh¬ 
teenth article of this treaty revived the first article 
already quoted of the Reciprocity Treaty, stipulating, 
however, that it should exist for the term of ten years, 
and for two years after either of the contracting parties 
should have given notice to the other of its wish to 
terminate the same. The nineteenth article granted, 
as a compensation to British subjects, the right of fish¬ 
ing on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United 
States north of the thirty-ninth degree of latitude. 
The corresponding article of the Reciprocity Treaty 


4i 6 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


had given such rights down to the thirty-sixth par¬ 
allel. By the twenty-first article it was agreed that 
for the term of years mentioned, 

“ Fish-oil and fish of all kinds (except fish of the inland lakes 
and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish preserved 
in oil), being the produce of the fisheries of the United States, 
or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward’s Island, 
shall be admitted into each country respectively free of duty.” 

As Great Britain asserted that the privileges ac¬ 
corded to the citizens of the United States were 
greater in value than those accorded by the United 
States to British subjects, an assertion that was not 
admitted by the United States, it was agreed that 
commissioners should be appointed to determine the 
amount of compensation which ought to be paid by 
the United States to Great Britain in return for these 
fishing privileges. This commission met at Halifax 
in 1877, the treaty having gone into effect on July 1, 
1873. The commission was composed of one Ameri¬ 
can, Mr. E. IT. Kellogg, a New England country 
lawyer ; Mr. A. T. Galt, a prominent Canadian states¬ 
man ; and M. Maurice Delfosse, then Belgian minis¬ 
ter at Washington. The British agent was Mr. Fran¬ 
cis Clare Ford, now British Minister at Madrid; our 
agent was Mr. Dwight Foster, a distinguished lawyer 
of Massachusetts, assisted by Mr. William H. Trescot 
and Mr. Richard H. Dana, Jr. During the negotia¬ 
tions at Washington in 1871, we had proposed to 


THE FISHERIES. 


41 7 


purchase the right to enjoy, in perpetuity, the use of 
the inshore fisheries, in common with British fisher¬ 
men, and had offered the sum of $1,000,000. This 
was thought inadequate by the British negotiators. 
Now, after a session of over five months, after hearing 
evidence and arguments on each side, the Halifax 
commission, by a vote of two to one, on November 
23, 1877, decided that we were to pay fora twelve 
years’ use of these fishing privileges the sum of $5,- 
500,000. The evidence was clear, for four years had 
already elapsed, that the fisheries were not in them¬ 
selves worth this ; but other claims were taken into 
consideration. There was, perhaps, a feeling of the 
necessity of offsetting the Alabama award, and our 
commissioner was certainly unfitted for his place. 
Hence this great award was given to our prejudice. 
There was a general dissatisfaction in the United 
States, but the money was paid without an official 
murmur, although we knew that these fisheries were 
becoming yearly of less value and use to us. 

When the time came that this part of the treaty of 
1871 could be terminated, Congress, by a resolution 
which was approved on March 3, 1883, directed the 
President to take the proper steps, and notice was 
accordingly given on July 1, 1883, of the termination 
of the treaty, which came to an end on July 1, 1885. 

As the termination of the treaty fell in the middle 

of the fishing season, Mr. Bayard, the Secretary of 
27 


4i8 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


State, acting partly on the representations of New 
England fishermen, and partly at the suggestion of 
the British minister, agreed, on June 22, 1885, to ex¬ 
tend the agreement of the treaty through the season 
of 1885, with the exception of the exemption from 
customs duties. This agreement contemplated fur¬ 
ther negotiations, and in his message of December, 
1885, the President recommended the appointment 
of a commission for such negotiations. This recom¬ 
mendation has met with disfavor in Congress, on the 
ground that any reciprocity in fishing privileges would 
do us more harm than good. Indeed, the situation 
seems to have totally changed in the last few years. 
I cannot do better than quote on this subject from a 
recent article in Science of February 5, 1886, which 
seems to reflect the opinion of the United States Fish 
Commission : 

“ The fisheries-treaty question, which is now the subject of 
so much discussion, is a very complicated one ; and it is not 
at all surprising that the Secretary of State, following tradi¬ 
tionary policy of more than a hundred years’ standing, and 
acting upon the long-established theory that participation in 
the fishery privileges of Canadian waters is of great value, 
should have failed to satisfy the expectations of the New England 
fishermen, who know so well that these privileges have long 
been valueless. A general impression seems to exist that our 
fishing-fleet no longer visits the Gulf of St. Lawrence, only be¬ 
cause there has been a temporary desertion of those waters by 
the species of fish which they seek. Such, also, is the idea of 
the Canadians. In his recent article in the North American Re- 



THE FISHERIES. 


419 


view, Lord Lome patronizingly suggests to his 1 good friends ’ 
across the line that they should not be too hasty in throwing 
aside the right to fish in English waters, because the fish may 
before long return in their former abundance. 

“ As a matter of fact, the abundance of fish in the Gulf has 
very little to do with the question as it now presents itself. 
Since 1871, when the Washington treaty was negotiated, a 
complete revolution has taken place both in the fisheries and 
the fish trade of the United States ; and, strangely enough, this 
revolution was effected chiefly in the six years which inter¬ 
vened between the completion of this treaty and the meeting 
in 1877 of the Halifax convention, by which $5,500,000 were 
awarded to Great Britain as a compensation for a concession 
to our fishermen, which had ceased to be of value to them, in 
addition to the remission of duties on Canadian fish, which 
during the period of fourteen years have amounted to several 
millions of dollars. Our Government has thus, unintentionally 
of course, been paying each year a large subsidy to the fish¬ 
eries of British North America, and developing the Canadian 
fisheries at the expense of our own ; and Canadian competi¬ 
tion has become so great that our fishermen feel that they 
have a strong claim upon the Government for some kind of 
protection. The fishermen therefore demand that the duty 
upon Canadian fish be restored, and that their own privileges 
shall be based upon the provisions of the treaty of 1818, which 
will again go into effect, if no new treaty arrangements are 
made. Our dealers in cured fish, on the other hand, mindful 
of the profits of handling the product of the Canadian fisheries, 
are clamorous for a continuance of the present free-trade 
policy. 

“ The revolution in the American fisheries is so extensive 
that it can scarcely be discussed in a notice so brief as this. 
One of the principal changes is the adoption of the puise-seine 
in the mackerel fishery, by which the fish are caught far out 


420 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


at sea, and in immense quantities, by enclosing them in an im¬ 
mense bag of netting. Formerly they were taken solely with 
hooks by the ‘ chumming ’ process. This was in the best 
days of the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery, when hun¬ 
dreds of American vessels would frequently lie side by side, 
throwing overboard vast quantities of oily, mushy bait, by 
which the schools of fish were enticed within reach. There is 
no reason to doubt that mackerel were as abundant then as 
now off our own coast, but the old method of fishing was not 
so well adapted to our waters. The purse-seine, on the other 
hand, cannot be used advantageously in the Gulf, nor is there 
any necessity for our fishermen to go so far from home for 
their fish. There does not appear to be any probability that 
our fishermen will ever return to the old methods. ‘ Chum¬ 
ming mackerel ’ is essentially a lost art. 

“ Another feature in the revolution is the introduction of im¬ 
proved methods of marketing fresh fish. With the extensive 
refrigerating establishments now in operation, and the facili¬ 
ties for rapid transmission of sea-fish inland, the demand for 
salted fish is relatively very much less than it was fifteen years 
ago. Then, too, the immense competition produced by the 
free entry of Canadian fish has lowered the price of cured fish 
until a very decided depreciation in its quality has resulted, 
with a consequent decrease in demand.” 


IX. 


COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


General Commercial Treaties.—The Most Favored Nation.— 
Special Commercial Treaties.—Changes in Commerce.— 
Our Earliest Treaties.—Commercial Relations and Ne¬ 
gotiations with Great Britain.—Treaties of 1794, 1806, 
and 1815.—Reciprocity Treaty of 1854.—Mr. Wheaton’s 
Negotiations with the German Zollverein.—Advantageous 
Treaty Rejected by the Senate.—The Mexican Treaty of 
1859.—That of 1883.—The Hawaiian Treaty.—The recent 
Treaty with Spain. 

COMMERCIAL treaties are in their nature either gen¬ 
eral or special. The ordinary general treaties of com¬ 
merce and navigation which secures to the contract¬ 
ing parties rights which otherwise would be granted 
only to subjects, are, in general, reciprocal in their 
nature, both parties granting like favors and immu¬ 
nities to the other. In such treaties it has been usual 
to insert what is called the “ most-favored-nation 
clause,” the effect of which is to give to each party 
the same treatment and the same privileges which 
have been or may be granted to the most favored 
nation without further specification or agreement. 
The form in which this clause has been inserted in 


422 


A MER1CA N DIPL OMA C Y. 


most of our treaties is as follows, from our treaty with 
Italy: 

“ The United States of America and the Kingdom of Italy 
mutually engage not to grant any particular favor to other na¬ 
tions, in respect to commerce and navigation, which shall not 
immediately become common to the other party, who shall 
enjoy the same freely, if the concession was freely made, or on 
allowing the same compensation, if the concession was con¬ 
ditional.” 

The most-favored-nation clause is not expressed in 

our late treaties in as absolute terms as it generally is 

in foreign treaties; and, in speaking of “ compensa- 
• . 
tion,” if the concession should be conditional, we 

have endeavored to keep to ourselves the right of 

making special commercial treaties, the stipulations 

of which should not be extended to other powers. 

Special commercial treaties are of two varieties. 
One, where either by force or predominance certain 
favors are granted by one party which are not re¬ 
ciprocally granted by the other, and which are there¬ 
fore not common to all the world, even under the 
most-favored-nation clause; and the other, where re¬ 
ciprocal advantages are stipulated for, but of a special 
nature. The general policy of the United States has 
been to avoid special commercial treaties, and to place 
the conditions of their commerce on an equality for 
the whole world. On several occasions we have de¬ 
rogated from this policy, especially with regard to 


COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


423 


countries in our immediate neighborhood; and very 
recently the Government proposed a whole system of 
special commercial treaties which, if carried out, 
would perhaps secure to our commerce very great ad¬ 
vantages. Whether these recent treaties be ratified 
or not, the system is one to which we shall un¬ 
doubtedly be forced to come sooner or later. The 
increase in the manufacturing interests of several con¬ 
tinental states, which make them rivals to England, 
the growth of their commerce, and the great impor¬ 
tance which the governments of civilized states now 
give to commercial questions, have brought about a 
system of special commercial treaties in Europe which 
we shall be obliged to imitate, at least for the coun¬ 
tries in this hemisphere, unless we intend to lose even 
those advantages which we have hitherto enjoyed. 
Changes in commercial theories and practices, as well 
as the changes brought about in transportation, to 
say nothing of those caused by new political systems, 
compel us to be on the alert and watchful lest our 
interests receive detriment. For example, a few 
years ago an attempt was made in Germany to pro¬ 
tect German products by a higher freight tariff on the 
German railways for foreign goods. In practice, in 
one particular article, this worked disadvantageous^ ; 
for Russian grain, instead of being sent through 
Danzig, found its way through the Hungarian port of 
Fiume, and was the immediate cause-of the great 


424 


A MERIC A N DITL OMA C Y. 


increase and the prosperity of that port. It has 
therefore been considered advisable in the most re¬ 
cent commercial treaties to insert a stipulation that 
no higher charge shall be made for the transportation 
of foreign goods over the railways of the country 
than for native goods. This was inserted in our re¬ 
cent treaty with Serbia of 1881. 

The difficulty which we have had with certain for¬ 
eign governments with regard to the importation of 
American pork will be obviated by more recent com¬ 
mercial treaties, which provide that the authorities of 
the country have power to forbid the importation of 
any articles which may be deleterious to public health. 
Such a provision not having been inserted in the 
most of our treaties with foreign powers, we are un¬ 
willing to yield to their declaration that questions of 
public health override all treaty stipulations. 

While the United States were yet colonies of Great 
Britain, they had been precluded from any trade ex¬ 
cept with Great Britain itself, and with certain little 
valuable markets in Africa, the South of Europe, and 
the West Indies. The parallel of Cape Finisterre, 
the boundary of the northern trade, entirely cut off 
France, Holland, and the northern countries of Europe. 
So accustomed were the European powers to consider 
the colonial trade of especial value, that when the 
United States cut loose from Great Britain, both 
France and Holland were exceedingly anxious to 


COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


425 


obtain the monopoly, or at least a great share of our 
commerce. However, in our commercial treaty with 
France of 1778, we simply admitted France to trade 
with the United States, without giving her any ex¬ 
clusive advantages. The same thing took place in our 
treaty of 1782 with the Netherlands; although the 
advantages expected to be derived from the American 
trade had greatly influenced Holland, and especially 
the merchants of Amsterdam, to a state of friendliness 
and subsequently to a treaty. 

William Pitt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
in March, 1783, after the provisional treaty and armis¬ 
tice had been concluded, and before the permanent 
treaty of peace had been made, wishing to attract the 
trade of America to Great Britain, and to continue 
the old commercial relations, brought a bill into Parlia¬ 
ment, in which he proposed to admit American ships 
and American goods into Great Britain on the same 
principles as British ships and goods, with the same 
duties, and entitled to the same drawbacks, exemp¬ 
tions, and bounties. One of the chief adversaries of 
this proposition was Mr. Eden, afterward Lord Auck¬ 
land, who feared that such an arrangement would in¬ 
jure British trade, and that it would be contrary to 
treaties with other powers, and who believed that in 
any case, as was indeed the fact, American commerce 
would continue to seek English markets instead of 
foreign ones. Such was the opposition that Mr. Pitt’s 


426 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C V. 


bill failed. Our commercial relations with England 
remained in an undefined condition all the more dis¬ 
agreeable to us, because when colonies we had had 
the right of trading with other British colonies, which 
after the Revolution was taken away from us. In 1790 
our Navigation Act was passed, which laid a duty of 
fifty cents per ton on foreign vessels, and an extra duty 
of ten per cent., ad valorem , on all merchandise im¬ 
ported in them. 

During the Confederation it was impossible to do 
anything for the furtherance of commerce because 
Congress had no power over commercial matters. It 
was, indeed, this very lack of power which finally 
brought about the Federal Constitution. 

An attempt was made in 1794 to regulate the com¬ 
mercial relations of the two countries; but by the 
treaty of that year we succeeded in getting few advan¬ 
tages. The duties on all ships and merchandise were 
put in the two countries on the footing of the most 
favored nation. There was reciprocal and perfect 
liberty of commerce and navigation between the ter¬ 
ritories of the United States and the dominions of 
Great Britain in Europe. As far as the West India 
trade was concerned, ships of not more than seventy 
tons burden could trade between the United States 
and the West Indies ; but their cargoes were to be 
unloaded in the United States; and more than that, 
American vessels were prohibited from carrying any 


C OMMER CIA L TREA TIES . 


427 


molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, or cotton, either from 
British islands or from the United States, to any part 
of the world except the United States. The object of 
this article was to prevent commerce in the products 
of the British West India Islands, which had for the 
sake of form been landed in the United States. It 
was not at that time thought that much cotton could 
be produced in the United States, although a small 
amount of it had indeed at that time been cultivated. 
Louisiana not yet being annexed, none of the other 
products could originate in the United States. Per¬ 
mission was given also to trade with the East Indies ; 
but ships, after having loaded there, were obliged to 
proceed directly to the United States without touch¬ 
ing at any other port or country, except at the island 
of St. Helena for refreshment. 

In 1806 Mr. Monroe, then minister to England, and 
Mr. William Pinkney, of Maryland, were commis¬ 
sioned to negotiate a commercial treaty with Great 
Britain. This they did, and in some respects it was 
the most favorable treaty ever obtained from that 
power. The articles of the treaty of 1794, which had 
not expired, were confirmed, with some changes. The 
trade to India was made a direct one, going as well 
as coming—a change not so advantageous to us as 
the previous agreement. The colonial trade with an 
enemy’s colony was arranged in a manner satisfactory 
to us at the moment, for we never had agreed to the 



428 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


rule of 1756, which forbade the coasting and the 
colonial trade in war, if it had been forbidden by 
municipal law in peace. The list of contraband arti¬ 
cles was lessened by excluding provisions. Unfortu¬ 
nately it had been found impossible to obtain any 
concessions from England with regard to the right of 
impressment of seamen claimed by that country, and 
in consequence the President, without even consult¬ 
ing the Senate, refused to ratify the treaty. 

In 1815 we at last succeeded in concluding a com¬ 
mercial convention with Great Britain, the chief ad¬ 
vantage of which was the entire abrogation between 
the two countries of discriminating rates on vessels 
and importations. Goods imported in American 
vessels were not to be charged higher duties than in 
British vessels, and vice versa; and American goods 
imported into Great Britain were not to be charged 
higher duties than those imposed in any other country. 
With regard to the East India trade the arrangement 
was substantially the same as in 1794; but not quite 
so favorable because American vessels were restricted 
to four ports of entry. We refused to allow the Eng¬ 
lish to trade with our Indians; and they in turn 
refused to give us the use of the St. Lawrence River. 
This treaty was concluded for four years, but was sub¬ 
sequently renewed in 1818 for ten years,* and again 

* For a full and interesting account of these negotiations 
with England, see the Diplomacy of the United States, by 


C OMMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


429 


in 1827 for ten years more. It was in vain that our 
Government struggled to obtain a more liberal ar¬ 
rangement, or at least a more liberal interpretation of 
the treaty. 

Before 1845 trade with Canada and the British 
colonies was burdened \tfith a system of differential 
duties which discriminated against foreign in favor of 
British goods, and prevented extensive importation 
into those provinces from the United States. The 
British colonial policy was changed in 1845, and the 
Canadian legislature, on receiving commercial liberty, 
in 1846 removed the differential duties. The imme¬ 
diate result was a great increase of trade, and the 
imports from the United States increased from about 
four millions of dollars in 1844 to about eleven mill¬ 
ions in 1851. This relaxation of commercial restric¬ 
tions was accompanied by propositions for reciprocal 
free trade between Canada and the United States. 
Mr. Packenham, the British minister, communicated 
with our Government on the subject in 1846; Mr. 
Bancroft was engaged in negotiations in London in 

1847, and in consequence of renewed representations 
a bill was passed by the House of Representatives in 

1848, though it did not reach a vote in the Senate. 
President Taylor submitted the subject to Congress 
in 1850, and President Fillmore again in 1851 and in 

Theodore Lyman, Jr.—a book which is unfortunately out of 
print. 


430 


A MERICA N DIPL OMA C V. 


1853. Finally, after long negotiations, a treaty was 
signed, on June 5, 1854, by Mr. Marcy and Lord 
Elgin, which was duly ratified. This treaty settled 
for the time the fishery question, as well as that of 
the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and provided for 
reciprocal free trade in a specified list of raw materials. 
Owing, as has been already said, to a strong protec¬ 
tionist feeling in Congress, and to a dislike to Canada 
arising from incidents connected with our war, notice 
was given to terminate this treaty, and it accordingly 
came to an end on March 17, 1866. 

In July, 1869, Sir Edward Thornton proposed new 
negotiations for a similar treaty, based on that of 

1854, with the addition of manufactured articles to 
the free list, the mutual opening of the coasting trade, 
the protection of patents and copyrights, and extra¬ 
dition. Negotiations continued, but it was found 
impossible to come to a satisfactory arrangement, and 
provisions for reciprocal free trade were therefore 
omitted in the treaty of Washington of 1871.* 

* See Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 33d Congress, 1st Session; 
H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 32, 38th Congress, 1st Session; H. R. 
Ex. Doc., No. 64, 31st Congress, 1st Session; Senate Ex. 
Doc., No. 3, Special Session, March 8, 1853 ; H. R. Ex. Doc., 
No. 40, 32d Congress, 2d Session ; Report No. 4, H. R., 32d 
Congress, 2d Session; Report No. 22, H. R., 37th Congress, 
2d Session ; H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 78, 39th Congress, 2d Ses¬ 
sion ; H. R. Ex. Doc., Nos. 240 and 295, 40th Congress, 2d 
Session ; H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 36, 40th Congress, 3d Session ; 
conf. Ex. Doc. A, Senate, Special Session, 1871. 


C OMMER CIA I TREA TIES. 


431 


Negotiations for commercial privileges with the 
German states were due chiefly to the initiative of 
Mr. Henry Wheaton, who was no less eminent as a 
negotiator than as a publicist. Mr. Wheaton arrived 
in Berlin, as minister, in June, 1835. There had been 
no minister before him except John Quincy Adams, 
who had been sent in 1797 for the renewal of the 
commercial treaty which had expired in 1795. Since 
that time Germany had taken on a very different 
form, partly in consequence of the arrangements 
made by the treaty of Vienna in 1815, and partly 
through the customs-union. At that time there 
were two : the Zollverein , composed of most of the 
states of Germany, except the Austrian dominions 
and a few northern countries, which formed a sepa¬ 
rate league known as the Steuer-verein. Prussia was 
at the head of the Zollverein. Mr. Wheaton was in¬ 
structed by Mr. Forsyth to direct his attention to 
the establishment of commercial relations with Ger¬ 
many, as well as for the removal of the droit d'au- 
baine and the droit de detraction. One of Mr. 
Wheaton’s first duties was to make a journey through 
parts of Germany and collect commercial informa¬ 
tion. Two things had especially attracted the no¬ 
tice of our Government : the high duties on tobacco, 
of which at least one-half of the American product 
was consumed in Germany; and the high duties on 
rice. By resolutions of the Congress of 1837-38 Mr. 


432 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


Wheaton was instructed to procure a reduction of 
these duties. His negotiations went on for six years, 
for he was somewhat embarrassed by the question of 
the “ most-favored-nation ” clause ; that is, whether, 
if we gave as an equivalent to Germany for the re¬ 
duction of duties certain reductions, we would be 
bound to give them to all nations with whom we had 
treaties containing this clause. This question had 
first sprung up in consequence of the convention for 
the purchase of Louisiana, and of the commercial 
convention of 1815 with Great Britain, and it was in 
order to get rid of such obligations, as Mr. Forsyth 
wrote to Mr. Wheaton, that the preference accorded 
to French wines was inserted in the treaty with 
France of 1831. Mr. John Quincy Adams had ar¬ 
gued on the American side, and it was believed 
answerably, in 1817, with regard to the Louisiana 
treaty ; and Mr. Wheaton always contended for the 
same views.* Mr. Wheaton went before the Con¬ 
gress of the Zollverein at Dresden in 1838 and pre¬ 
sented a memoir, by which he obtained a reduction 
of duties on rice, although not immediately upon 
tobacco. The reciprocity stipulations in our previous 
treaties were thought to operate disadvantageously 
to American navigation in the case of the Hanse 
towns, especially in regard to tobacco. For while in 

* See Congress. Doc., 18th Congress, 2d Session, No. 91 ; 
also, Lawrence’s Wheaton, notes on pp. 493, 494, ed. of 1863, 


C O AIMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


433 


1828 there was a great preponderance in favor of the 
American vessels, in 1835 the difference in the to¬ 
bacco trade alone was six to one against our mercan¬ 
tile marine. It was, therefore, that, in the treaty with 
Hanover of 1840, Mr. Wheaton introduced a less 
extended reciprocity than had been adopted in the 
previous German treaties. 

In May, 1841, Mr. Webster compiled, from the 
materials furnished him by Mr. Wheaton, a report on 
our commerce with the Zollverein , which was laid 
before Congress with the President’s message, and the 
suggestion was made of entering into a commercial 
treaty with th e Zollverein. In 1842-43 Mr. Wheaton 
attended further sessions of the Commercial Union, 
but difficulties were raised in consequence of the 
augmentation by our tariff of 1842 of the duties on 
articles imported into the United States from Ger¬ 
many, and retaliatory measures had been suggested. 
Nevertheless Mr. Wheaton was finally successful in 
signing a treaty on March 25, 1844. The United 
States agreed not to impose on certain articles of 
produce or manufacture of the states of the Zollve¬ 
rein duties exceeding twenty percent., ad valorem; 
on others, duties exceeding fifteen per cent.; and on 
a third class, duties exceeding ten per cent. They 
agreed also not to increase the duties on wines sent 
from Prussia, nor to impose higher duties on the 

wines from the other states. The Zollverein , in con- 
28 


434 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


sideration of this, agreed to reduce the duties on to¬ 
bacco and lard to a stipulated rate ; not to raise the 
existing duties on rice; and not to impose any duty 
on unmanufactured cotton. These reductions, how¬ 
ever, were only to apply to goods laden on board the 
vessels of one of the contracting parties, or on vessels 
placed on the footing of national vessels by treaties, 
and imported directly from the ports of one party 
to those of the other. 

Mr. Wheaton’s treaty was considered as a master¬ 
stroke by most of his colleagues and by our Govern¬ 
ment, and naturally aroused the jealousy of Great 
Britain and of other maritime powers, who attempted 
to claim the same advantages without rendering any 
corresponding equivalent. Transmitting this treaty 
to the Senate in April, 1844, the President said in 
his message that he “could not but anticipate from 
its ratification important benefits to the great agricul¬ 
tural, commercial, and navigating interests of the 
United States.” 

This treaty was rejected by the Senate, by a strictly 
party vote of twenty-six to eighteen, on the single 
ground that “ the Legislature was the department of 
Government by which commerce should be regulated 
and laws of revenue passed ; ” that therefore the State 
Department had no right to interfere in such regula¬ 
tions by negotiations. This view was contested by 
Mr. Calhoun, who became Secretary of State after the 


COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


435 


sudden death of Mr. Upshur, and he said that the ob¬ 
jections of the committee were opposed to the uniform 
practice of the Government. “ So well established,” 
says he, “ is the practice, that it is believed that it has 
never before been questioned. The only question it 
is believed that was ever made was, whether an act of 
Congress was not necessary to sanction and carry the 
stipulations making the change into effect.” In a 
private letter to Mr. Wheaton, of June 28, 1844, he 
spoke of the reasons assigned for its objection as very 
inconclusive.* 

The objections made to the Zollverein treaty 
seemed afterward to be deemed untenable ; for the 
Canadian Reciprocity Treaty with Great Britain, of 
1854, which was made in the same way, was at once 
ratified, although it varied the existing tariff, and a 
law to carry it into effect was passed by Congress. 

In 1859 Mr. McLane was sent as minister to Mex¬ 
ico, with instructions to conclude a commercial treaty. 
Unfortunately, owing to the slavery question, our 
country was then in such a state that anything begun 
by Mr. Buchanan was treated with suspicion by a 
large party at the North, and a treaty, in many re¬ 
spects very advantageous to us, was rejected by the 
Senate. At that time the government of President 
Juarez was shut up in Vera Cruz, and it was believed 

* Lawrence’s Wheaton, ed. of 1863, Introductory Remarks, 
p. cvii. 


436 


A ME RICA N DIP L OM A C Y. 


at Washington that by giving him an indefinite 
promise of eventual support he could be induced to 
sell to the United States certain provinces of Mexico. 
It was understood that at first Mr. Buchanan de¬ 
manded Lower California, Sonora, Chihuahua, and a 
part of Coahuila. These offers being declined our 
Government then reduced its demands to Lower Cali¬ 
fornia only, and made the cession of that territory a 
sine qua non of the treaty negotiations. When it was 
ascertained that the Mexicans would not sell a foot of 
their territory, Mr. McLane received instructions in 
August, 1859, to abandon such demands. During 
that time, however, there had been a change in the 
cabinet of Juarez, and Mr. McLane was obliged to re¬ 
turn home at the end of August without any treaty 
at all. In November he was sent back again. Mr. 
O’Campo had returned to the cabinet as Minister of 
Foreign Relations, and negotiations were renewed and 
a treaty signed on December 14th. This had one 
very important commercial article, the eighth, giving 
a list of merchandise, from which the Congress of the 
United States was to be allowed to 

“Select those which, being the natural industry or manu¬ 
factured product of either of the two republics, may be ad¬ 
mitted for sale or consumption in either of the two countries 
under condition of perfect reciprocity, whether they be con¬ 
sidered free of duty or at a rate of duty to be fixed by the 
Congress of the United States ; it being the intention of the 
Mexican republic to admit the articles in question at the low- 


C OMMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


4 37 


est rate of duty, and even free, if the Congress of the United 
States consents thereto.” 

There were, however, other important stipulations; 
one which allowed free transit, without duty, across 
the isthmus of Tehuantepec, with ports of deposit, 
one on the east and one on the west of the isthmus, 
and also a free right of way of transit from Mata- 
moras, or any suitable point on the Rio Grande, to the 
port of Mazatlan on the Gulf of California. Mexico 
agreed to employ the requisite military force for de¬ 
fending these routes should it ever become necessary; 
“ but upon failure to do this, from any cause whatever, 
the Government of the United States might, with the 
consent or at the request of the Government of 
Mexico or their minister, or other competent legal 
authorities, employ force for this and no other pur¬ 
pose.” Still further provision was made for an ex¬ 
ceptional case of unforeseen or imminent danger to 
the lives and property of citizens of the United 
States, when the United States troops could be em¬ 
ployed for their protection without any consent hav¬ 
ing been previously obtained. 

“ In consideration of these stipulations and compensation for 
the revenue surrendered by Mexico on the goods and mer¬ 
chandise transported free of duty through the territory of the 
republic,” 

the United States agreed to pay Mexico the sum of 
$4,000,000; but two millions were to be retained for 


43§ 


A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C K 


the payment of claims of citizens of the United 
States against the government of Mexico. 

The Mexican treaty came up first in the executive 
session of the Senate on February 28, i860, and, as 
we learn by the account of the proceedings in the 
New York Tribune of the following day, it was vio¬ 
lently opposed both by Senator Wigfall, of Texas, 
and Senator Simmons, of Rhode Island, who said : 

“ It is substantially reciprocal free trade with Mexico, which 
would require us in the clause inserted in every commercial 
treaty for the last forty years of admitting each nation on an 
equal footing with that of the most favored nation, to allow 
other nations to claim similar privileges, and would result in 
destroying our revenue and compelling a resort to direct tax¬ 
ation.” 

The treaty came up again in executive session on 
May 31st, when Mr. Simmons took opposite ground 
to that which he apparently held at the first session, 
and proposed a number of amendments to regulate 
the articles to be admitted free of duty in either 
country according to the eighth article. Among 
these we find from Mexico, tobacco, sugar, and wool. 
Mr. Hammond objected to the treaty, on the ground 
that it would be equivalent to the practical annexa¬ 
tion of Mexico, and he could not see how the South 
would be benefited by it ; and Mr. Seward was un¬ 
willing to commit the Government to an important 
treaty with a faction which might be immediately 


COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


439 


deposed by another, which would repudiate the action 
of its predecessor, and that we would then be com¬ 
pelled even to surrender what had been acquired, or 
probably to resort to war for its enforcement. The 
amendments of Mr. Simmons were rejected by a vote 
of twenty to twenty-six, and Senator Wigfall then 
moved an amendment providing for a reclamation of 
fugitives from service or labor, which received a ma¬ 
jority, but not a two-thirds majority. The treaty was 
defeated by eighteen to twenty-seven, Senators Sim¬ 
mons and Anthony being the only Republicans who 
voted in favor of it. A motion was made to recon¬ 
sider, and it came up again on June 27th, but it then 
went over to the next session, and was never rati¬ 
fied.* 

The extension of the Mexican railway system to 
connect with the railways of the United States, and 
the great increase of the American capital invested in 
Mexico, led to a resolution in the Senate, on April 5, 
1882, authorizing negotiations for a commercial trea¬ 
ty with Mexico. General Grant and Mr. William 
Henry Trescot were appointed commissioners on the 
part of the United States, and Mr. Romero and Mr. 
E. Canedo on the part of Mexico. This treaty was 
signed at Washington on January 20, 1883, and pro¬ 
vided for the entry into the United States, free of 
/ 

*See The Mexican Papers, No. 3, September 15, i860, by 
E. E. Dunbar, 


440 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


duty, of twenty-eight articles of Mexican produce, in¬ 
cluding, among other things, coffee, unmanufactured 
leaf tobacco, and sugar of not above sixteen of the 
Dutch standard and color. Seventy-three articles of 
American produce and manufacture were to be ad¬ 
mitted free of duty into Mexico, including coal, 
petroleum, iron machines, and many manufactured 
articles. This treaty was to last six years, but could 
not be ratified until the Congress of the United States 
and the Mexican government had passed the laws 
necessary to carry it into effect. It was, however, 
provided that the contracting parties were free to 
make such changes in their import duties as their re¬ 
spective interests might require, and to grant to other 
nations the same liberty of rights in regard to one or 
more of the articles of merchandise named in the an¬ 
nexed schedules, either by legislation or treaties; but 
if such changes were made, the party affected might 
denounce the treaty before the six years had elapsed, 
and it would be annulled in six months after such 
denunciation. 

This treaty, after a long debate and several post¬ 
ponements, was finally approved by the Senate; but 
as Congress has never yet been willing to pass the 
laws necessary to carry it into effect, it has not yet 
been ratified. Our delay in this matter has been pre¬ 
judicial to us; for Germany and Great Britain have 
not been slow to profit by it in beginning negotiations 


C OMMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


441 


for treaties more beneficial to themselves than to us; 
and if the time should come when Congress should 
finally consent to put this treaty into operation, we 
may find that the advantages which we once could 
have had are no longer ours. That question, how¬ 
ever, belongs to the sphere of legislation and not to 
diplomacy. 

From a diplomatic point of view it is possible that, 
considering our extensive land frontier of Mexico, and 
the ease of railway communication, we might have 
adopted some different method of obtaining the 
same result, and one which would shut out Euro¬ 
pean nations from the same privileges. We might, 
for instance, have adopted the extended definition 
of local frontier traffic, introduced by Austria into 
her treaty with Serbia, by which the whole produce 
of the United States, or of Mexico, might have 
been included within the articles of local frontier 
traffic. 

The condition of the Hawaiian Islands had been 
such for many years as to excite the apprehension of 
our statesmen. The trade of that country demanded 
an outlet, and unless facilities were afforded by the 
United States, there was great fear lest the commerce 
of the country should be monopolized by Australia and 
the English, which would result in the Islands becom¬ 
ing practically a British possession. From a political 
point of view such a prospect had been most unpleas- 


442 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


ant for the United States, and it was at last decided, 
in 1874, to negotiate a commercial treaty with the 
Hawaiian Islands, admitting various of their prod¬ 
ucts, especially sugar, free of duty into the United 
States, in return for the remission of duties on many 
objects of American manufactures and production. 
This treaty was signed on January 30, 1875. Ratifi¬ 
cations were exchanged on June 3d of the same year, 
and Congress subsequently passed a law carrying its 
stipulations into effect. By one article the govern¬ 
ment of the Hawaiian Islands agreed to impose no 
export duty or charges on the articles admitted free of 
duty into the United States, so that it was impossible 
for the amount of revenue given up by our Govern¬ 
ment to be taken by the Hawaiian Islands in the way 
of an export duty. The necessity of this stipulation 
was obvious from the fact that when, some years be¬ 
fore, in order to answer the cry for a free breakfast 
table, our customs duties had been taken off from 
tea and coffee the government of Brazil immediately 
placed an export duty on the coffee sent from that 
country, and the result was that the price of coffee in 
the American markets was in no way diminished ; but 
the amount of revenue which the United States eave 
up was simply put into the treasury of Brazil. Had 
we, at that time, instead of putting coffee upon the 
free list, made a commercial treaty with Brazil by 
which special advantages of some kind had been ob- 


C OMMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


443 


tained in return for taking the duty off coffee, the 
state of our trade with Brazil would have been much 
more favorable to us than it is at present. It was 
also agreed that the Hawaiian Islands would not 
grant to any other nation the same privileges relative 
to the admission of articles free from duty as was se¬ 
cured to the United States; and it was also agreed 
that so long as the treaty should remain in force the 
government of the Hawaiian Islands should not lease, 
or otherwise dispose of, or place any lien upon any 
port, harbor, or other territory in its dominions, or 
grant any special privilege or rights of usage therein 
to any other power, state, or government. This stip¬ 
ulation was more of a political than of a commercial 
nature. 

In order to carry out these provisions of the treaty 
the Hawaiian government was obliged to submit to 
considerable loss. For, in order to satisfy Great 
Britain, which claimed the privileges of the most 
favored nation, a remission of fifteen per cent, was 
granted on the duties fixed by the general tariff laws 
of the kingdom. In a subsequent treaty with the 
German empire, on September 19, 1879, it was stipu¬ 
lated that the special advantages granted to the 
United States of America, in consideration of equiva¬ 
lent advantages, could not be claimed by Germany; 
and a similar declaration was inserted in a treaty 
made with Portugal. 


444 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. 


The result of this treaty has been, on the whole, in 
spite of some slight drawbacks, exceedingly favorable 
to the United States, and the efforts to denounce it 
have thus far failed. The exports from the United 
States to Hawaii increased from $809,000 in 1876 to 
$3,523,000 in 1884; and the imports increased, in 
like way, from $1,383,000 in 1876, to $7,926,000 in 
1884. The population of the Hawaiian Islands being 
about seventy thousand, the exports from the United 
States amounted to about fifty dollars per head, while 
the consumption in 1876 was only $12.66 per head. 
The imports of American goods free of duty into 
Hawaii in 1883 amounted to over fifty-six per cent, 
of the total amount, being $3,169,000 out of $5,624,- 
000. There would seem to be an excess of imports 
into the United States from the Hawaiian Islands 
over the exports of nearly four and a half million dol¬ 
lars ; but this amount is not returned to the Sandwich 
Islands in coin, because it is paid in this country. It 
simply goes from the hands of one American to 
those of another. In fact, commercially speaking, the 
Hawaiian Islands have become almost an American 
possession. Mr. Daggett, the American minister, re¬ 
ported in October, 1883, that fully two-thirds of the 
sugar plantations in the Islands belonged to citizens 
of the United States; out of an aggregate valuation 
of over fifteen million dollars Americans owned over 
ten million dollars. In 1884 ninety-five per cent, of 



COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


445 


the total commerce between the United States was 
effected on American vessels, and this brought with 
it the purchase of stores in the United States. While 
the Hawaiian commercial marine has greatly increased 
since the signature of the treaty, nearly all of the new 

vessels were of American build. 

% 

It has been urged against this treaty that the price 
of sugar is no lower in the Pacific States than it was 
before the treaty, or than it is in the East. This is 
not due to the working of the treaty itself, but to 
other circumstances. So long as Manilla sugar, that 
is, the sugar imported from the Philippine Islands is 
burdened with the duty, the cost of the Hawaiian 
sugar, which is entirely bought up by sugar refin¬ 
ers, and only sold to the consumer in a refined state, 
will be about the same as the cost of sugar refined 
from the Manilla raw sugar. Competition from the 
Eastern States is shut out by contracts made by 
these same sugar refiners with the railway compan¬ 
ies, who, it is stated, receive the value of the freight 
which they would take for the transportation of 
sugar from the Eastern States, with a handsome 
bonus besides, on condition that they shall transport 
none at all. 

In speaking of the recent commercial arrangement 
with Spain, and especially of our trade with the 
Spanish Antilles, it is necessary to take into account 
what difficulties had hitherto been placed in the way 


446 


AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 


of our commerce. The old colonial system—that is, 
which considered the trade with the colonies to be a 
simple extension of the coasting trade—had always 
been kept up by Spain, and a system of discriminat¬ 
ing duties had been placed on imports, especially in 
Cuba and Porto Rico, designed .to favor trade with 
the mother country, as well as to favor Spanish ves¬ 
sels trading between the colonies and either home or 
foreign ports. There were four distinct tariff rates 
applicable to these islands. What is called the first 
column applied only to goods brought from Spain 
under the Spanish flag. The second fixed duties at 
about double the rate of the first on goods of Spanish 
origin taken in foreign vessels. The third, about 
treble the rate of the first, applied to goods brought 
from any foreign country under the Spanish flag. The 
fourth column contained duties four or five times 
greater than the most favored rate of the first column, 
and were applied to foreign goods brought to Cuba 
or Porto Rico under any foreign flag. As from two- 
thirds to three-fourths of the whole export trade 
of the Spanish Antilles had been with the United 
States, and as the American sailing vessels, being 
better fitted for the traffic, had obtained a great share 
of the carrying trade, notwithstanding discriminating 
duties, this discrimination of tariffs bore heavily on 
the trade with the United States. 

Among other regulations imposed by the rule of 


COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


447 


the particularists and protectionists which obtained 
such strength during the war of the rebellion, an 
act of Congress of June 30, 1864, imposed ten per 
cent., ad valorem , in addition to all other duties, on 
merchandise imported in any ships or vessels not of 
the United States. This discriminating duty was of 
course not applicable to any countries which were en¬ 
titled by treaties or by acts of Congress to the same 
privileges as vessels of the United States. There 
was no treaty with Spain on this subject, and there¬ 
fore the ten per cent, discriminating duty was imposed 
on all articles brought from Spain or the Spanish 
colonies to the United States in Spanish ships. Sub¬ 
sequently, however, by a series of partial agreements, 
this discriminating duty was abolished as concerns 
Spain itself, and all the Spanish possessions, except 
Cuba and Porto Rico, and this exception was an¬ 
nounced by the proclamation of the President of 
December 19, 1871. Spain considered this law as an 
unfriendly act, and retaliated by imposing, even on 
merchandise carried in vessels bearing the Spanish 
flag, the same duties as if they had been carried under 
a foreign flag. This was directed solely against the 
United States, for merchandise coming from any 
other country would pay the duties fixed by the third 
column of the tariff, that is, from thirty to sixty per 
cent. less. But against the products of the United 
States the discrimination which had hitherto been 


448 


A MERIC A iV DIPL OMA C V. 


partial was made total. From that time on there 
were protracted negotiations to get rid of this dis¬ 
criminating duty; but the Spaniards refused to re¬ 
move it until we had removed the discriminating 
duties imposed by the act of 1864, and the President 
was only empowered to remove these in cases where 
other countries had removed their discriminating 
duties. 

Besides this, the Spanish government had imposed 
what was practically an export duty on articles sent 
from the United States to Cuba and Porto Rico, by 
refusing to verify ships’ manifests until a certain tax 
was paid, based upon the tonnage of the cargo and 
not upon the clerical service rendered. This was 
paid to the Spanish consul before the vessels could 
clear for Cuba or Porto Rico. We protested against 
this on the ground that it was not, properly speaking, 
a consular fee, but that it was a tax on exports from 
the United States, such as under the Constitution 
our Government was expressly prohibited from levy¬ 
ing. 

Furthermore, a heavy import duty had been im¬ 
posed on Cuba on live fish brought to the island in 
foreign vessels, which was practically prohibitory, and 
nearly destroyed a lucrative industry pursued by the 
fishermen of Florida. Owing to the nearness of 
Florida to Cuba Spanish vessels would clear from 
Havana for a coast port, and would then go to the 


C OMMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


449 


coast of Florida or into the Gulf of Mexico and fish, 
and introduce the product as if caught on the Cuban 
coast ; while American vessels with the same cargo 
were subjected to this heavy duty. 

Owing to the erroneous classification of our diplo¬ 
matic posts, which insists on regarding the legation 
to Madrid as one of the second class, instead of being, 
what it really is, our second diplomatic post, in im¬ 
portance inferior only to the legation at London ; and 
owing also to the system under which diplomatic ap¬ 
pointments have been made, so that if by chance a 
good or experienced man were sent to Madrid he 
was soon replaced by a hack politician, neither intel¬ 
ligent nor experienced, it was impossible to make 
headway in our negotiations. Fortunately for our 
interests the Government finally sent to Madrid Mr. 
John W. Foster, who had already had several years’ 
experience as minister to Mexico, and subsequently 
to St. Petersburg, who understood the language and 
the people, and who happened to be well acquainted 
with the state of our trade with the West Indies. He 
succeeded, on January 2, 1884, in making an agree¬ 
ment, in the nature of a modus vwcndi , between the 
United States and Spain, by which the differential 
flag duty was abolished, and articles coming from the 
United States paid the duties imposed by the third 
instead of the fourth column of the tariff; by which 

the duty on live fish was made void for the United 
29 


450 


A MERICA N DIPL 0MA C Y. 


States; and by which the Spanish consular officers 
ceased to impose or collect tonnage fees on the car¬ 
goes of vessels leaving the ports of the United States 
for Cuba and Porto Rico. The United States at the 
same time agreed to remove the extra ten per cent, 
duty under the act of 1864, and perfect equality of 
treatment between the said Spanish provinces and 
the United States was established, thus removing all 
extra duties or discrimination in general as to other 
countries having the treatment of the favored nation. 
The two countries at the same time bound themselves 
to begin negotiations for a complete treaty of com¬ 
merce and navigation. For this arrangement an¬ 
other one, varying in some slight matters, and leaving 
out the agreement for treaty negotiations, was sub¬ 
stituted on February 13, 1884. 

Subsequently Mr. Foster was successful in nego¬ 
tiating a commercial treaty, which was signed on No¬ 
vember 18, 1884, which in general put American ves¬ 
sels and American trade on the same footing with 
Spanish trade, and contained certain stipulations 
with regard to the commerce of the United States 
which were not granted to other foreign countries. 

Apart from reductions of duties the treaty with 
Spain is remarkable, being the most perfect commer¬ 
cial treaty in all its provisions that has ever been 
signed by the United States, and redounds greatly 
to the credit of the negotiator. All restrictions and 


C O AIMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


451 


technical peculiarities to which American exporters 
and shippers had been subjected for many years were 
abolished, and it was arranged that foreign products 
sent from the United States in American vessels 
should have the same privileges as though shipped in 
Spanish vessels. Tonnage dues on both sides were 
completely abolished, as well as consular fees, which, 
especially on the Spanish side, had been a heavy bur¬ 
den. The treaty of 1795 did not contain many of 
the stipulations of more modern treaties with regard 
to the rights of persons, property, and commerce to 
the disadvantage of our interest. These defects were 
fully supplied, and the result of this treaty would be 
to prevent most of the complaints of American prop¬ 
erty-owners, such as have arisen in the recent insur¬ 
rections in Cuba. This treaty differed from former 
reciprocity treaties, which provided only for the free 
admission of certain goods, in providing, also, for the 
favored admission of an additional list of articles at a 
specified reduction of duties from the existing cus¬ 
toms tariffs. It was arranged that these products 
should be exchanged at the lower rate of duties only 
when carried in American or Spanish vessels, which 

v • 

is certainly an important provision for the develop¬ 
ment of our shipping. It was forbidden to lay ex¬ 
port duties in either country on the articles admitted 
free of duty, and the export duties imposed in Cuba 
on sugar were reduced to the lowest rate consistent 


452 


A ME RICA A T DIPL OMA C Y. 


with the obligations of the Cuban bond-holders, to 
whom these revenues had been pledged, that is, one- 
sixth of a cent per pound. No greater internal 
taxes were to be levied on American products in the 
Spanish islands than on native products. This im¬ 
portant provision, which is now generally inserted in 
American commercial treaties, was to prevent the im¬ 
position of municipal dues and what are called “ taxes 
on consumption,” which amount to the same thing as 
customs dues. Such a provision was not inserted in 
the Mexican treaty, although it was admitted that 
the “ taxes on consumption ” imposed in the various 
provinces, and in the city of Mexico itself, frequently 
doubled or trebled the customs duties. 

While in the treaty with Mexico it was provided 
that in case of any important changes in the customs 
duties of either country there would be a right to de¬ 
nounce the treaty, this right was specially given up 
by Article 24 of the Spanish treaty, and each power 
was allowed to make such changes in their customs, 
tariff, and navigation dues as they may see proper, and 
to extend to other powers freedom of duties, reduc¬ 
tions, and favors equal or similar to those stipulated 
in the treaty under the same or similar conditions, 
the principle being maintained, on which we had be¬ 
fore insisted, that the most-favored-nation clause of 
treaties cannot be applied in its unrestricted sense to 
reciprocity conventions ; but that, when two nations 


C OMMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


453 


stipulate for special favors or reciprocal reduction of 
duties upon specified conditions, third powers cannot 
claim or enjoy like favors except upon the same or 
equivalent conditions. It was agreed, however, by 
Article 23, that any favors or concessions granted to a 
third power could be enjoyed by the other party to 
this treaty gratuitously, if the concession shall have 
been gratuitous, or upon giving the same or other 
equivalent compensation, if the concession should be 
conditional. 

By a protocol annexed to the treaty it was agreed 
that the modus vivcndi of January 2 and February 
15, 1884, should terminate, the result of which was 
that while we gained by the treaty all of the advan¬ 
tages which we had received by the modus vivcndi , 
they terminated as far as other countries were con¬ 
cerned. 

The important items on the list of articles to be 
admitted either free or at a reduction of duty were of 
Cuban produce—sugar and tobacco. As to sugar, 
all grades not above No. 16 of the Dutch standard 
were to be admitted into the United States free of 
duty, and on tobacco in general the duty was reduced 
by fifty per cent. The list of American goods ad¬ 
mitted into the Spanish colonies at either free or 
reduced rates was very much greater; and the con¬ 
cessions made were such as to be very beneficial to 
our export trade. The duty on petroleum, for ex- 


454 A MERIC A 1\ T DIPL OM A C V. 

ample, was reduced from $6.40 to $1 per hundred 
kilogr.; on wheat, from $3.15 to 50 cents per hun¬ 
dred kilogr.; on flour, from $4.70 to $2.50, and 
$1.65 a barrel, not to mention the very great reduc¬ 
tion on manufactured goods of all kinds. 

This treaty was submitted to the Senate on Decem¬ 
ber 10, 1884, and was made public about the same 
time. Some of its provisions excited considerable 
opposition, especially on the part of the particularists 
and protectionists, who feared lest the sugar and to¬ 
bacco interests might be affected. As far as the sugar 
refiners were concerned there could be little question. 
Sugar duties are now arranged so as to prevent the 
consumption of any but refined sugar. So heavy a 
duty is placed on the higher grades of unrefined sugar 
that we no longer find in use here those brown and 
half-brown sugars which were formerly so common, 
and which are so much liked and so much consumed 
in England. The only way in which the treaty was 
not wholly in the interest of the sugar refiners was in 
admitting the grades of sugar between No. 13 and 
No. 16, and it was thought that if the treaty could 
be amended by substituting No. 13 for No. 16 there 
would be no interference whatever with the business 
of the sugar refiners. 

What the sugar-refining interests amounts to we 
may see from a letter from various leading merchants 
in New York to Senator Miller, the Chairman of the 


COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 


455 


Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, dated New 
\ ork, December 28, 1884. In the year 1880, as ap¬ 
pears from the census returns, there were employed in 
all the sugar and molasses refining establishments of 
the United States five thousand eight hundred and 
thirty-two men and twenty-five children. The wages 
paid were $2,875,032. The refined product for the 
year was worth the enormous sum of $155,484,915. 
The total cost for materials was $144,698,499, and, 
adding the cost of wages, the total cost of the manu¬ 
factured product was $147,573,531, leaving the sum 
of $8,000,000 for the interest on capital invested and 
for profit. 

But objections also were made to the treaty on the 
ground that as Cuba and Porto Rico supplied us 
with only about two-thirds of the amount of sugar 
used, the price of sugar in the market, to the con¬ 
sumer, would remain about the same so long as any 
amount whatever paid duty, and the result would be 
that the revenue which the United States gave up by 
taking off the duties on Cuban and Porto Rico sugar 
would simply go into the hands of the Spanish plant¬ 
ers in the shape of increased profits. In one sense 
this is true, but it could only remain true until Cuba 
and Porto Rico were enabled to supply us with the 
whole amount of sugar that we need, or until other 
similar commercial treaties were made with other 
sugar-producing countries. These last are chiefly 


456 


A MERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. 


three : other Spanish possessions, especially the Phil¬ 
ippine Islands, the British West Indies and Guiana, 
and Brazil. It was claimed by many who were con¬ 
versant with the subject that the impulse given to the 
sugar industry in Cuba and Porto Rico would be suf¬ 
ficient within one, or at most two years, to supply us 
with the whole amount that would be consumed, 
although with cheaper sugar its use would be greatly 
extended. 

It would be wrong to consider the commercial 
treaty with Spain as standing alone, but it should be 
considered as forming part of a system. A similar 
treaty was concluded at about the same time with St. 
Domingo, and another one was in process of negotia¬ 
tion with the British West India Islands. Unfortu¬ 
nately these negotiations all took place toward the 
close of an administration, and another party coming 
into power was unwilling to be hampered by the acts 
of its predecessor. The result was that the Spanish 
treaty was withdrawn from the Senate before being 
acted upon, for further consideration and possibly 
amendment ; and when this occurred the British gov¬ 
ernment broke off negotiations for a similar treaty 
with their West India Islands. 

The question as to whether it is desirable entirely 
to take off the duties on sugar, which are a convenient 
means of raising revenue, is not my province to dis¬ 
cuss ; but if those duties are either to be removed or 


C OAIMER CIA L TREA TIES. 


457 


lowered, it would seem better to use them as a means 
of obtaining concessions from other powers, rather 
than to throw away all the advantages which we now 
possess, by lowering or abolishing the sugar duties by 
a general law. 













. 




























« 
























































INDEX 


Adams, John, 187; appointed coin- [ 
missioner to treat with Barbary 
powers, 197 ; his account of inter¬ 
view with Tripolitan ambassador, 
ib.; 200, 201, 205, 226, 287 ; his say¬ 
ing relative to the fisheries, 405 ; 
correspondence regarding fish¬ 
eries, 408. 

-, John Quincy, 8, 138, 140, I 

155, 187, 206, 241, 237, 283, 296, 
297, 298, 300, 374, 377, 378, 381, 
432 . 

Aberdeen, Lord, 250, 412, 413. 

Addington, Mr., 412. 

ALgidi, Dr., proposition of, 401. 

Alexander, Emperor, 294. 

Algiers, slaves in, instances of, 194; 
treaty of France with, ib. ; cost 
of peace with, to Spain, 195; 
Thomas Barclay and John Lamb 
appointed to treat with, 197, 203 ; 
failure of Lamb’s negotiations 
with, 205; Mr. Jefferson, Richard 
O'Brien, and John Quincy Adams 
on, ib. —Treaty with, proposed by 
General Washington, 208; Ad¬ 
miral Paul Jones sent to treat with, 
ib.; failure of treaty with, 209 ; I 
number of American prisoners in, 
ib. ; English and Portuguese truce 
with, 210; Mr. Church on, 210 
note; petitions of American cap¬ 
tives in, to Congress, 211 ; Donald¬ 
son’s treaty with, 213 ; total cost of 
treaty with, ib. ; war with, 222; 
draft for treaty with, ib.; dec¬ 
laration made by Decatur and 
William Shaler to, ib. ; treaties 
with, by Lord Exmouth, 228 ; 
bombardment of, by English and 
Dutch, 229 ; Christian slaves given 
up by, ib. ; French conquest of, 
230 ; arrival of American squad¬ 


ron at, under Commodore Chaun- 
cey, 231 ; treaty with, ratified, 
ib- ; treaty of France with, report 
of Mr. Jefferson on, 194. 

Algiers, Dey of, armed vessels sent 
to, as arrearages by United States, 
214 ; account of presentation to, 
by William Eaton, ib. ; action 
of the, with regard to frigate 
George Washington, 221 ; cost to 
United States and satisfaction, 
ib. ; grievances of the, ib. ; no¬ 
table reply of Decatur and Will¬ 
iam Shafer to, 222 ; terms of treaty 
signed by, 223 ; Lord Exmouth 
and the, 228, 229; action taken 
by the Congress of Aix-la-Cha- 
pelle against, 230; declares 
treaty with us no longer binding, 
231 ; message to James Madison, 
ib. ; President Madison’s reply 
to, ib. 

Ambassador, Tripolitan, meeting 
between, and Jefferson, 197; Mr. 
Adams’ account, 198 ; price de¬ 
manded by, for perpetual peace, 
199 - 

Ambassadors, their rights, their 
rank, 108; Calvo on, no; Pro¬ 
fessor Martens on, in; Baron 
de Neumann on, 112 ; difference 
between, and Ministers Plenipo¬ 
tentiary, 116. 

Amazon, river, and tributaries 
opened to commerce of the 
world, 343 ; pamphlet of Lieuten¬ 
ant Maury on, translated and 
circulated in Peru, ib. 

Anthony, Senator, 439. 

Appropriations, Chairman of Stand¬ 
ing Committee on, his position, 
4 - 

Archives, 36 ; rules regarding ac- 









460 


INDEX. 


cess to them, 39 ; American doc¬ 
uments in foreign, 38. 

Argentine Confederation, treaty of 
Great Britain, France, and United 
States with, for free navigation 
of rivers, 322 ; constitution of, 
modelled after that of United 
States, 323. 

Armed neutrality, commercial 
treaty of United States with j 
France precedes declaration of, 
369; first idea of, belongs to 
Russia, ib. ; ascribed to Freder¬ 
ick the Great, ib. ; Catharine II. 
relative to, ib. ; Wheaton, and 
Baron von Goertz on, ib. ; his¬ 
tory of, given t6 light, 370 7 iotc; 
date of preliminary steps, 371. 

Armstrong, General, 148. 

Ashburton, Lord, 254. 

Assistant Secretaries of State, 
their positions, 10; their duties, 
ib ., 20. 

Astor, John Jacob, 294. 


Bancroft, Mr., 113, 429. 

Banks, General, 143. 

Barbary powers, ransom of captives 
from ; Goethe’s description of col¬ 
lection for, 194 ; means taken to 
protect United States vessels 
from depredations of, 195 note, 
196 note; capture of schooner 
Maria and ship Dauphin by, 196 ; 
commission issued to Mr. Jef¬ 
ferson, Mr. Adams, and Dr. 
Franklin to treat with, 197; 
opinions of Adams and Jefferson 
on war with, 200, 201, 202 ; whole 
cost of buying freedom of our 
ships from, 218 ; question of put¬ 
ting down, brought before Con¬ 
gress of Vienna, 225 ; English pol¬ 
icy, ib., 226; Chateaubriand's ( 
proposal concerning, 228 ;’United 
States the first to obtain abolition 
of presents to, and proper treat¬ 
ment of prisoners by, 232 ; expen- 1 
diture for intercourse with, ib. 

- States, Lord Exmouth sent 

by British government to, 225 ; 
Lord Sheffield and Smollett on, 
227. 

Barbour, Mr., 383. 

Barclay, Thomas, treaty with Em¬ 
peror of Morocco, 203. 


Barlow, Joel, associated with 
Joseph Donaldson and Hum¬ 
phreys, 213 ; treaty with Tripoli, 
215- 

Bayard, Mr., 417, 418. 

Barrere, M., 359. 

Barrier treaty, the, by whom made, 
345 ; end of, ib. 

Black Sea, when closed, answer of 
the Porte to Peter the Great con¬ 
cerning, 3x7 ; article in treaties of 
Paris and London relative to, 318; 
United States maintain their right 
to send ships of war into, ib. 

Brazil, government of, objects to 
treaty regarding navigation of riv¬ 
ers, 324; Mr. Marry on, 325. 

Bright, Mr., 166. 

Brougham, Lord, 229, 236. 

Brunnow, Baron, 395, 396. 

Buchanan, James, 8 ; 142, 312, 382, 

3 g 5. 3 86 - 398, 435- 43 6 - 

Buenos Ayres, protest of province 
of, against treaty of Argentine 
Confederation concerning the 
Amazon, 325. 

Bulgaria, need of American diplo¬ 
matic agent in, 120. 

Bureaux, Consular, 10; Department 
of State, ib .; diplomatic, ib.; Law, 
Library, Rolls, Statistics, 11 ; In¬ 
dex, 12. 


Calhoun, Mr., 22, 434. 

Canedo, E., 439. 

Canning, Mr., 244, 246, 302. 

Capitulations, consular, privileges 
so called, 60. 

Cass, Lewis, 8, 143, 252, 253, 255, 
260, 261, 262, 398. 

Castlereagh, Lord, 228, 240, 241, 243. 

Catherine II., 369, 371. 

Cavour, Count, 397. 

Chairman of the Standing Commit¬ 
tee on Appropriations, his posi¬ 
tion, 4 ; of Committee of Ways 
and Means, ib. ; his privilege, 5. 

Charge's d’affaires, when instituted, 
their diplomatic rank, 108. 

Chateaubriand, 228, 382. 

Chauncey, Commodore, arrival at 
Algiers, 231. 

China, trade with, carried on by 
American vessels until 1814, 292; 
entrance to Russian ships for¬ 
bidden in ports of, ib. 







INDEX. 


461 


Christianople, treaty of, regulates 
Sound dues, 306 ; tariff imposed 
by, ib. 

Civilization in South America de¬ 
pendent on river systems, 319 

Clarendon, Lord, 385, 386, 397. 

Clay, Henry, 8, 285, 286, 307. 

-, J. Randolph, 329, 330, 331, 

333 > 335 . 338 , 339 . 340 . 34 i. 343 - 

Cleveland, President, 100, 366. 

Cobden, Mr., 166. 

Columbia, ship, arrived in Nootka 
Sound, in 1788, 292 ; first vessel 
to carry American flag around 
the world, ib. 

Commercial relations, Mr. Pitt's 
bill, 1783, opposition of Mr. Eden, 
425 ; our, with England, attempt 
to regulate, 1794, 426, 428 ; Mr. 
Wheaton’s, with Germany, 431 ; 
dealings with Zollverein, 432; 
Mr. Webster’s report on our, 
with Zollverein, 433 ; with Ha¬ 
waiian Islands, 444 ; with Spain, 
445 et seq. 

- treaties, defined policy of 

United States regarding, 422 ; 
with France, 1778, 425 ; with 

Netherlands, ib. ; Mr. Monroe 
and Mr. Pinkney commissioned 
to negotiate a, with England, in 
1806, 427 ; this, not ratified, 428 ; 
the, of 1815, with Great Britain 
advantageous, renewed in 1818, 
1828, 428 note; Reciprocity treaty, 
1854, terminates in 1866, 430; Mr. 
Wheaton’s, with Zollverein, 1844, 
433; message of President on 
this, rejection by Senate, Mr. 
Calhoun on, 434; Canadian Reci¬ 
procity, with Great Britain, 1854, 
435; Mr. McLane sent to Mexico 
to conclude, in 1859, 436; de¬ 
mands of United States, impor¬ 
tant articles and stipulations, ib. ; 1 
opposition to Mexican, by Mr. 
Wigfall and Mr. Simmons, never 
ratified, 439 ; General Grant and 
Mr. William H. Trescot commis¬ 
sioned to negotiate a, with Mexi¬ 
co, 1882, 440; diplomatic view 
of Mexican, 441 ; Hawaiian, 1875, 
contains one stipulation of politi¬ 
cal nature, 443; United States, 
with Spain, arranged by Mr. 
Foster, 1884: this, mostperfect one 
ever signed by United States, 450. 


Commissioners, or commissaries, 
119; diplomatic representatives, 
sent to settle special questions, 
ib. ; their rank, ib. ; as political 
agents, ib. ; their rank as such, ib. 

Committee, on Appropriations, re¬ 
cent change in rules of House 
regarding, 30; on Expenditure, 
how elected, 23 ; duties, powers, 
27; on Foreign Affairs, House 
and Senate, 24 ; reports of, speci¬ 
men, 28 note; Standing commit¬ 
tees, their power, 23. 

Congo, Free State of the, estab¬ 
lished by act at Conference of 
Berlin, 1884, 365 ; African Inter¬ 
national Association merged in, 
ib. ; extract from Piesident Cleve¬ 
land’s message relative to, 366 ; 
J. A. Kasson on, ib .; North Amer¬ 
ican Review on, ib. 

- River, different claims to, 

3 6 4 - 

-, Valley of, explored by 

Henry M. Stanley, 364. 

Consul, his exequatur , 96 ; its ob¬ 
ject, ib. ; at Palermo, his impor¬ 
tance, 68. 

Consul-General, reports, 58; at 
Shanghai, 66; at Matamoras, 67. 

Consular appointments, objections 
to long tenure of, 161. 

-clerks, 46, 84. 

■- courts, need of reform in sys¬ 

tem of, 55. 

-hierarchy, abroad and at 

home, 81. 

-Invoice Book, 50. 

-officer, his qualifications, 71 ; 

additional qualifications, 75; qual¬ 
ifications in France, 73. 

-officers, privileges of, 69. 

-privileges, or capitulations, 

60. 

--Regulations, 58. 

•- Reports, printing of annual, 

3 2 - 

-salaries, 46. 

-service, expense of, 17; its 

growth, 84; in Belgium, 103 ; 
British, its efficiency, 93; in 
France, its excellency and its sal¬ 
aries, 94. 

-System, self-supporting, 92 ; 

need of reform in, ib. 

-Treaty with France. 45. 

Consuls, 41 ; duties, 44 ; their rights 























462 


INDEX. 


and powers, ib ., 63 ; as defined in ' 
Wheaton’s International Law, 44 ; 
in William Beach Lawrence's 
Commentary on Wheaton, ib. ; in 
shipping ports, 53 ; duties in non- 
Christian countries, 59 ; their 
number, 85 ; salaries, ib. ; fees, 
87 ; authorized to employ experts 
at Lyons, Zurich, Horgen, 91. 

Corea, treaty with, 118 ; diplomatic 
relations with, ib. 

Correspondence, diplomatic, 34. 

Cushing, Caleb, 45. 


. Daggett, Mr., 444. 

Dallas, Mr., 262, 263, 303. 

Dana, Richard H., Jr., 416. 

Danube, freedom of navigation on, 
recognized by Austria and Tur¬ 
key, 352 ; Articles 15 to 19 of 
Treaty of Paris regarding, 353 ; 
three different regulations applied 
to, up to 1871, 356 ; change made 
by Treaty of Berlin, ib. , 358; de¬ 
cision of European Commission 
on navigation of, 358 ; Mr. Bar- 
rere's proposal, ib., 359 ; eight 
different systems for regulation 
of, 361. 

-, mouths of, allowed to fill 

U P- 353 I possessed by Russia, 
352 ; European commission for 
clearing, 353; number of ship¬ 
wrecks in, in five years, 356 ; ac¬ 
tion of Russia relative to, 360, 
361 ; Russian, exempted from 
operation of European commis¬ 
sion, 362. 

Dardanelles, straits of, first treaty 
for free navigation of, made with , 
Russia, 317 ; treaties with Austria, 
Great Britain, and France, con- ' 
cerning, 318 ; United States no 
treaty rights for navigation of, , 
until 1830, ib. ; treaty of 1862 with 
United States concerning, ib. ; 
American ships of war and, ib. 

Dayton, Mr., 400. 

Decatur, Commodore, aslieutenant, 
destroys frigate Philadelphia, 219; | 
negotiator to Algiers, answer to 
the Dey., 222 ; proceeds to Tunis, 
report to Secretary of Navy, 224. ' 

Delfosse, Mr. Maurice, Belgian 
minister, commissioner Halifax 
award, 416. j 


Denina, Abbe, 269. 

Department of State, when created, 
7 ; its management, 15 ; chief 
clerk, 16; its efficiency, 17; sal¬ 
aries, 18 ; Secretary of, 4, 7, 18 ; 
his duties, 19. 

Diplomacy, the first use of the 
word, 106 ; Calvo's definition of, 
ib. ; Professor Marten on the 
word, 131 ; purposes of, ib. 

Diplomate, 106. note. 

Diplomatic agent, an American, at 
Bucarest, 121. 

-agents, strictly so called, 

119, 120 ; rules for, as arranged by 
Congress of Vienna, 108; ac¬ 
cepted by United States, 107, 108 
note; as classified by Congress of 
Aix-la-Chapelle, 108; system of, 
164; opinions concerning their 
use, Wheaton on, ib. ; Lord Palm¬ 
erston on, 165-167 ; Mr. Bright 
and Mr. Cobden on, 166. 

-service, expenditure of our 

foreign, 168, efforts to reduce it, 
ib. ; salaries in, inadequacy of, 
184 ; salaries in, Edward Living¬ 
ston's report, ib. ; Thomas Jeffer¬ 
son’s letter, 186; John Adams’ 
and John Quincy Adams’ let¬ 
ters, 187; Mr. Monroe’s letter, 
188; Mr. McLane’s and Mr. 
Webster’s reports, 188 note; Mr. 
Wheaton’s letter, 189 ; number 
of persons in, 177 ; total cost of, 
during fiscal year ending June 
30, 1885, 178 ; comparative table 
showing rank and salaries in, of 
United States, Great Britain, and 
France, 179 ; examples of, com¬ 
bined, 170 ; suggestion that we 
entirely dispense with, 171 ; du¬ 
ties, ib. ; pensions abroad, 184. 

Diplomatists, questions of rank of, 
118 note; good and bad, exam¬ 
ples of, 146, 147, 148, 148 note; 
greatest annoyances to, 162. 

Documents, Executive, 34. 

Dominion act, its amendment re¬ 
stricting American fishermen, Mr. 
Fish’s action on, 415. 

Donaldson, Joseph, consul at Tu¬ 
nis and Tripoli, authorized to em¬ 
ploy Skjoldebrand, 213; concludes 
treaty with Algiers, ib. 

Duties, consular and diplomatic, 
171 ; consular, have not hindered 










INDEX. 


463 


diplomatic work, 172 ; such uni¬ 
ons no novelty, 174 ; examples in 
foreign diplomacy, ib., 175. 

Eaton, William, consul at Tunis, 
description of his presentation to 
Dey of Algiers, 214 ; authorized 
to treat with Bey of Tunis, 217 ; 
letter of, 219; march overland 
from Alexandria to Derna with 
ex-Bashaw Hamet, ib. 

Eden, Mr. (Lord Auckland), 425. 

Elgin, Lord, treaty of commerce, 
430; Reciprocity Treaty, 414, 
435 - 

Embassy, an, 121. 

Envoys, when instituted, their dip¬ 
lomatic rank, 108 ; Calvo on, no. 

-Extraordinary, few in num¬ 
ber in United States, 112. 

Erie, slave-ship, commander of, ex¬ 
ecuted, 264 ; only case of punish¬ 
ment by death, ib. 

Etiquette, questions of, 13; ques¬ 
tions of, in diplomatic service, 138, 
139 . 

Everett, Edward, 8, 250, 256, 412, 

413 - 

Exequatur, a consul’s, 96; of Mr. 
Hopkins, consul to Paraguay, 
withdrawn, 236. 


Fillmore, President, 429. 

Fish, Mr., 34, 135, 415. 

-Commission, 413, 416, 418. 

Fisheries, the, Article 3 in, treaty 
of September 3, 1873, 404 ; re¬ 
mark of John Adams concern¬ 
ing, 405; English on the, treaty, 
406 ; effect of War of 1812 on, ib .; 
reason of silence regarding the, 
in treaty of Ghent, 407; Mr. Pom¬ 
eroy on commissioners of, 408 ; 
conflicts concerning, ib.) treaty 
under Mr. Adams, 1818, ib., 
rights and privileges of, in first 
article, ib .; omission of word bait 
afterward an obstacle in, 410; 
statute of Parliament, 1819, for, 
ib.) commission of arbitration, 
1853, 413 ; permanent legislation 
regarding, 414; change in char¬ 
acter of, ib .; Article 1 on, in 
Reciprocity Treaty, ib.) disputes 
on, renewed at abrogation of 
treaty, in 1866, 415 ; Dominion 
act restricts American, ib .; order 


of Governor-General of Canada, 
Mr. Fish on, ib.) treaty of 1871 
reopens the, ib .; commission at 
Halifax, 1877, award paid for right 
of, 417; decline in value of, ib.) 
treaty of 1871 terminates in 1885 
by act of Congress, ib.; further 
extension of, treaty by Mr. Bay¬ 
ard, 418 ; present state of, in arti¬ 
cle from Science, ib. 

Fiume, Hungarian port of, cause of 
the great prosperity of, 423. 

Ford, Thomas Clare, 416. 

Forsyth, Mr., 432. 

Foster, Mr. Dwight, American 
agent, Halifax award, 416. 

-, John W., sent to Madrid, 

449; his treaty with Spain, 1884, 
450 . 

Fox, Mr., 256. 

Franklin, Dr., 141, 197; rumor of 
his capture in Algiers, 200 ; treaty 
negotiated with Prussia, 375, 376. 

Frederick the Great, 375. 

Frelinghuysen, Mr., 47, 100. 

Free ships make free goods, max¬ 
im proclaimed by France, 368 ; 
adopted by United States, ib. \ 
quoted by Mr. Crampton, 387; 
by Mr. Marcy, 388; Lord Claren¬ 
don attacked for having subscrib¬ 
ed to principle, 397. 

Fundy, Bay of, American vessels 
seized for fishing in, 412 ; com¬ 
plaints regarding fishing in, to 
British government, ib. ; Mr. Ad¬ 
dington and the President on, 
ib. ; controversy on rights in, be¬ 
tween Lord Aberdeen and Mr. 
Everett, ib. ; Lord Malmesbury 
on, 413 ; article in treaty of Great ’ 
Britain with France regarding, 
ib. ; ship Washington seized in, 
ib. ; dimensions of, discussed by 
commission for arbitration, ib. 


Gall, A. T., commissioner, Halifax 
award, 416. 

Gallatin, Mr., 286, 287, 288, 381, 
383. 

Gardogui, Don Diego, Spanish 
charge d’affaires, 269; Spanish 
commissioner, 273. 

Garnier-Pages, 401. 

Gibbon, Lieutenant, 350. 

Godoy, power of Spain in hands of, 










464 


INDEX ; 


273 ; styled Prince of Peace, 274; 
his relations with Mr. Monroe, 
ib. ; remarks in memoirs of, on 
navigation of Mississippi, 277. 

Goertz, Baron von, 369. 

Gortchakof, Prince, 125, 395; an¬ 
swer to Mr. Marcy’s amendment, 

397 - 

Government, Congressional, Wood- 
row Wilson's book on, 5 note. 

-, of United States, of what 

composed, 4 ; addition to, in time 
of war, ib. ; diplomatic publica¬ 
tions of the, 36. 

Grant, General, 45 ; commissioner 
for commercial treaty with Mex¬ 
ico, 1882, 1883, 439. 

Guizot, M., 253. 


Halifax Award, the, decided by 
commission, November 23, 1877, 
417 ; list of commissioners, 416. 

Hale, Mr., 261. 

Harrowby, Lord, 397. 

Haswell, John H., 40. 

Herndon, Lieutenant, 331, 335, 350. 

Hopkins, General Edward, 325. 

Humboldt, Baron William, 348. 

Humphreys, Colonel David, Amer¬ 
ican minister at Lisbon, appointed 
plenipotentiary, 209; letter of, 
211. 


Jackson, General, 140. 

Jay, Mr. John, 266, 267, 268, 269, 
271. 

Jefferson, Thomas, 8, 186, 196, 197, 
199, 201. 202, 205, 207, 208. 

Jones, Admiral Paul, negotiations 
for treaty with Algiers entrusted 
to, 208 ; death of, 209. 
oseph II., Emperor, 345, 346. 
uarez, President, 435. 
uges-Consuls and their tribunals, 
43; origin of commercial or con¬ 
sular courts in France, ib. 

Juno, American ship, opportune 
arrival of, at Sitka, 293. 


Kasson, J. A., 366. 

Keim, Mr., treasury agent, sent to 
examine consular affairs, 59 ; bill 
of, 59 note. 

Kellogg, E. H., 4x6. 


Lamb, John, his negotiations with 
Algiers, 197; Jefferson and 
O'Brien on, 205 ; reception by 
Dey of Algiers, 206. 

Languages, most in use in diplo¬ 
matic circles, 125. 

Lear, Tobias, 220. 

Legation, a, 121 ; attaches and sec¬ 
retaries of, duties and salaries, 

122, 123, 182; first appropriations 
made for secretaries of, 182 ; 
qualifications of secretaries of, 

123, 126 ; the, at Madrid, impor¬ 
tance of, 449. 

Legations, complaints made to our, 
160 ; commercial difficulties give 
most work to our, 161. 

Leisler, Jacob, who played impor¬ 
tant part in early colonial history, 
captive in Algiers, 194. 

Letters of marque ; stipulations re¬ 
garding, in our treaties, 383, 386 ; 
Austria and Spain’s declarations 
at Crimean war, 385. 

Livingston, Edward, 184. 

Lopez, President, 326, 327, 328. 

Lyndhurst, Lord, speech on right of 
search, 263. 

Lyons, Lord, 400. 


Madison, President, 231, 301. 

Malmesbury, Earl of (James Har¬ 
ris), 370, 413- 

Marcy, Mr., 141, 143, 313, 325, 335, 
336; instructions to Mr. Trous¬ 
dale concerning navigation of 
Amazon, 337, 338, 343 ; on letters 
of marque, 386-388, 392 ; amend¬ 
ment to Declaration of Paris, 393, 
395 ; Reciprocity treaty, 414, 430. 

Marshall, John, 8. 

Mason, Mr., 142, 143. 

Mathurins, order of, when instituted, 
207 ; for what, ib .; how employed 
by Mr. Jefferson, ib. 

McLane, Mr., 188, 435, 436. 

Melbourne, Lord, 249. 

Metternich, Prince, 349. 

Middleton, Mr., 296, 299. 

Miller, Senator, 454. 

Ministers, their acceptance abroad, 
rules regulating it, 133; Ameri¬ 
can, refused according to these 
rules, 134 ; special, why maintain¬ 
ed at each foreign capital, 169. 

-, how sometimes rejected by 







INDEX. 


465 


countries they are accredited to, 
134 . 154 ; examples, 135, 136, 154; 
136 note. 

Ministers, plenipotentiary, when in¬ 
stituted, 108; their diplomatic 
rank, ib.\ how differing from am¬ 
bassadors and envoys extraordi¬ 
nary, 116. 

-, resident, when instituted, 

108 ; their diplomatic rank, ib .; 
American, when introduced, 112; 
rank and precedence, ib. ; ques¬ 
tions of, 114; how appointed, 
132; salaries of, 115, 133; diplo¬ 
matic duties of, 136, 138, 139, 145, 
146, 157, 162 ; social duties, 149, 
155 I questions of etiquette for, 
138, 139 I John Quincy Adams on 
ceremonies, 138 ; rank and prece¬ 
dence of, questions of, 112 ; uni¬ 
forms of foreign, of United States, 
139 ; resolution of Congress relat¬ 
ing to uniform of, ib. ; uniform of, 
under John Quincy Adams and 
General Jackson, 140; other ex¬ 
amples, 141, 142, 143, 145. 

Missions abroad, rearranged ac¬ 
cording to relative importance, 
176. 

Mississippi, the, our western boun¬ 
dary in treaty of 1783, 269; nego¬ 
tiation for the freedom of the, how 
carried on, 270; proposition to 
Spain through Mr. Jay relating 
to, 271 ; Thomas Pinckney ap¬ 
pointed to treat with Spain on 
navigation of, 275; treaty relat¬ 
ing to navigation of, signed, 276 ; 
fourth article of treaty, ib. ; pro¬ 
test of Spanish government to 
minister at Washington relating 
to navigation of, in 1797, 277 ; an¬ 
swer of Mr. Pinckney, ib. , 279; 
whole banks of the, from source 
to mouth, become American, 281. 

Modus vivendi, effected by John W. 
Foster with Spain, 449 ; results of 
its termination, ib., 453. 

Monroe doctrine, first hint of the 
policy known as, 298. 

-, James, 8, 150, 188, 274, 301, 

381 ; commissioned to negotiate 
commercial treaty with Great Brit¬ 
ain, 429. 

Morocco, treaty with Emperor of, 
203 ; renewal of, 204; convention 
with, its object, ib. 


Napier, Lord, 260, 262. 

Navigation, free, of rivers and seas, 
rights claimed by United States, 
266; of the Mississippi, condition 
on which obtained, 266 note; of 
the St. Lawrence, American claim 
to, 282; of rivers Yukon, Porcu¬ 
pine, Stikine, and of Lake Michi¬ 
gan granted to Britain, 291 ; of 
Dardanelles, 317; Guizot on free 
navigation of La Plata, 320; 
treaty of England with Rosas con¬ 
cerning Parana, 321; of Uruguay 
declared common to contracting 
parties, ib. ; of rivers of Confede¬ 
ration free to all flags, ib.] of Par¬ 
aguay and right side of Parana, 
ib.] of rivers Parana and Uru¬ 
guay, 322 ; of rivers and naviga¬ 
ble waters flowing through Bolivia 
opened to the world, 331 ; exclu¬ 
sive right of steamers on Amazon 
given to Brazilian Company, ib.; 
of Amazon, why not claimed by 
England and France, 334, 335 ; of 
Amazon declared free by Ecua¬ 
dor, 335 ; Mr. Marcy to Brazilian 
minister on free navigation of 
Amazon, 336; Mr. Marcy’s in¬ 
structions to Mr. Trousdale rela¬ 
tive to, of Amazon, 337; Presi¬ 
dent Pierce’s message relative on, 
ib. ; of riversof Peruvian Republic, 
344; of the Sheldt, 345, 346; 
French of Sheldt and Meuse, ib.; 
demands of France at Rastadt 
concerning Rhine and other 
rivers, 347 ; Congress of Vienna 
and of Verona on navigation of 
Rhine, 348, 349; question of 
Sheldt arranged at treaty of 1839, 
ib. ; navigation of Elbe, rights of, 
350; settled by treaty, 351 ; of 
river Po settled by treaty, ib .; 
navigation on the Danube, when 
recognized by Austria and Tur¬ 
key, 352 ; of Danube at outbreak 
of Crimean War, 350 ; attempts to 
restrict it, 354; action of European 
powers, 354, 355 ; free navigation 
of rivers, singular questions in, 
362; free navigation of Congo and 
of Niger decided at Conference 
of Berlin, 1884, 365. 

--Act, 1790, 426. 

Nesselrode, Count, 303, 382. 

Neutral rights, declaration of, by 






466 


INDEX. 


Russia to courts of London, Ver¬ 
sailles, Madrid, 1780; points of 
declaration, 3, 373 ; nations who 
join convention of, 374 ; United 
States offers to join league, ib .; 
provisions for, in United States 
treaty with Netherlands, ib. ; and 
in treaties with Sweden and Prus¬ 
sia, 375 I Jay’s treaty, 376 ; treaty 
of 1785 with Prussia expires, 379 ; 
renewed ib. ; position of, at out¬ 
break of Crimean War, 387; 
treaty of 1854 between United 
States and Russia on, 389; de¬ 
claration of principles of, at Con¬ 
gress of Paris, 391; adherence 
to these principles, 392 ; refusal of 
United States, ib.; Mr. Marcy's 
amendment to the declaration of 
Paris, 393, 398 ; opinions of sev¬ 
eral statesmen on amendment, 
395-397 ; General Cass on, at time 
of Italian war, 398 ; Mr. Seward’s 
circular, 399 ; answer of England 
and France, ib.; rules of treaty 
of Paris during Italian war, 400; 
after Mexican War by Napoleon's 
decree, ib.; at outbreak of Span¬ 
ish war of 1866, ib.; actions of va¬ 
rious chambers of commerce on, 
401 ; resolution of Federal Diet of 
North Germany, ib.; M. Garnier- 
Pages' proposal at beginning of 
Franco-German War, ib.; treaty 
of commerce with Italy, 403. 

O'Brien, Captain Richard, 205; 
John Quincy Adams on, 206 ; his 
letter to the President, 211. 

Officers, diplomatic, 151 ; salaries 
of, ib.; Mr. Schroeder on, ib.; 
comparative table showing sala¬ 
ries of, of United States, Great 
Britain, and France, 179. 

Official, a diplomatic, in no way a 
political one, 129 ; how appointed, 
132 ; credentials, 133. 


Packenham, Mr. (Lord Palmer¬ 
ston), 397, 429. 

Pacto del Assiento de Negros , the 
article known as, 234. 

Page, Lieutenant Jefferson, 321, 
326, 327, 328. 

Palmerston, Lord, 150, 165, 166, 
167, 249. 

Panin, Count, 369, 371, 373. 


Paraguay, treaty of 1853 with, 
provides for free navigation of 
river, 322 ; ratification of treaty 
with, prevented, 326 ; hostile rela¬ 
tions of, with United States, how 
caused, ib., 328 ; decree issued by, 
prohibiting foreign vessels from 
navigating rivers of, 327 ; United 
States sends commissioner and 
naval force to, 328 ; two treaties 
effected with, in 1859, 328 note. 

Passarowitz, treaty of, recognizes 
freedom of navigation on Danube, 
352 - 

Peel, Sir Robert, 256. 

Pensacola, harbor of, held by Eng¬ 
land, 206. 

Peru, terms of American treaty 
with, in 1851, 329; Lieutenants 
Herndon and Gibbon sent to, 
330 ; treaty between Brazil and, 
article in it for navigation of Am¬ 
azon, 331 ; Mr. Randolph Clay 
takes action to preserve American 
rights in, ib. , 333 ; Loreto and 
Nauta made ports of entry in, 
332 ; intrigue in, against United 
States on opening of Amazon, 
333; Brazilian minister to, stirs 
up controversy on Amazon ques¬ 
tion, 338 ; Mr. Clay urges his gov¬ 
ernment to maintain their rights 
in, 344 ; treaty with, terminates in 
1863, ib. ; no treaty with, until 
1870, ib. ; decree of, opening all 
rivers to merchant vessels, ib. 

Pickering, Mr., 279. 

Pierce, President, on treaty with 
Russia, 337. 

Pinckney, Thomas, 211, 275, 276, 
279. 

Pinkney, William, 427. 

Piracy, slave trade declared to be, 
by Lord Castlereagh, 242; by 
Congress, 244 ; the word defined, 
ib. ; municipal, international, as¬ 
similated, ib. 

Pirates, can be attacked anywhere 
and everywhere, 244 ; examples 
of capture by Barbary, 194 ; Pres¬ 
ident Polk on privateers as, dur¬ 
ing Mexican War, 384. 

Pitt, William, bill of, 425. 

Polk, President, on privateering, 

384- 

Pomeroy, Professor John Norton, 
406. 







INDEX. 


467 


Powers, diplomatic and consular, 
united in same person, examples, 
172, 173, 174, 175. 

Privateering, Dr. Franklin on, 376 ; 
action of United States and Eng¬ 
land regarding, in 1823, 381, 383 ; 
France and Russia on, 382; ac¬ 
tion during war with Mexico, mes¬ 
sage of President Polk, 384 ; Aus¬ 
tria and Spain concerning, at 
outbreak of Crimean war, 385 ; 
declaration of England and 
France in 1854, ib .; injury to Eng¬ 
land by, statement of Lord Har- 
rowby, 397; Congress of Paris, 
declaration on, 391 ; Mr. Marcy 
on, ib. ; theoretical writers on in¬ 
ternational, 394 ; Mr. Seward on, 
during our civil war, 400. 

Privateers, injury to trade by Amer¬ 
ican, in Northern Ocean, 371 ; 
action of Empress Catherine, ib. ; 
proclamation by French king re¬ 
garding, in 1823, 380; neutrals’ 
ownership of, 383 ; Norway, Swe¬ 
den, and Denmark prohibit, from 
anchoring in their ports, 385 ; 
President Pierce on, 389 ; action 
of Chamber of Commerce, 1854, 
390 - 

Pruyn, Mr., 144. 


Randolph, Mr., 275, 282. 

Red Book, the, 34. 

Register, Historical, of Department 
of State, 40. 

Right of Search, treaties of England 
regarding, 238 ; obtained by Eng¬ 
land by treaty with Spain, 240 ; 
message of John Quincy Adams 
to Lord Castlereagh relative to, 
241; Prince Regent on, 242 ; de¬ 
cision of Lord Stowell on, 243 ; 
Lord Castlereagh's proposal at 
Aix-la-Chapelle, ib. ; treaty with 
England stipulates for reciprocal 
right of, 246 ; Mr. Adams on, 248 ; 
Great Britain obtains from France 
concession of, ib. ; Duke of Wel¬ 
lington on, ib. ; Lord Palmerston 
on, 249; Lord Aberdeen, Mr. 
Wheaton, and Mr. Lawrence on, 
250; President Tyler’s messages 
relating to, ib., 255 ; treaty be¬ 
tween England, Austria, Russia, 
Prussia, and France relative to, 


qualified, 252 ; action of Mr. Cass 
relative to, 253, 255; Mr. Web¬ 
ster on, 256 ; De Cussy on, 257 ; 
action of Parliament in 1845 on, 
ib. ; Lord Napier and Mr. Casson 
on, 260, 261 ; action taken by 
Executive to protect all vessels 
of United States from, 261; Mr. 
Dallas on, 262 ; Lord Lyndhurst 
on, 263 ; Mr. Seward’s acceptance 
of mutual, ib. 

Romero, Mr., 439. 

Rush, Mr., 241, 245, 283, 284, 286, 
381 ; negotiates treaty with Great 
Britain, 408. 

Russia, convention with, setting 
boundary of Russian posses¬ 
sions in America, 299 ; Mr. Mon¬ 
roe on convention with, 301; the 
English papers on convention 
with, ib., 302 ; 4th article of treaty 
made at convention with, expires 
in 1834, 302. 

Russian America, treaty of 1867 ne¬ 
gotiated by Mr. Seward—Russia 
cedes possessions in, 304 ; ques¬ 
tion arising out of treaty regard¬ 
ing, ib. 

Russian-American Company reor¬ 
ganizes fur trade, 1798, 292 ; in¬ 
fluence of, at Russian court, 296 ; 
charter of, renewed in 1839 for 
twenty years, 304. 

Russian, subjects, right of, to be¬ 
come Americans, 304. 

- synod appoints archbishop 

at San Francisco, 304. 

-bishop an official of Russian 

government, 305. 

-Ukase, introduced by Rus¬ 
sian minister, 296 ; reply of Mr. 
Adams to, ib. ; Professor Mar¬ 
tens and Mr. Middleton on, ib .; 
Mr. Adams on, 298, 299 ; Baron 
de Tuyl on, 298 ; treaty fixing 
boundaries of possessions in 
America, 299. 


Sanford, H. S., 142, 143. 

Schenck, General, 144, 321, 322, 
323, 325, 341. 

Secretary of State, by whom named, 
4; of the Treasury, by whom 
named, ib.] his duties, 5 ; his pre¬ 
rogative, ib. 

Secretaries of State, assistant, their 







468 


INDEX. 


positions and duties, io, 20; as 
diplomatists, Adams, Clay, Jeffer¬ 
son, Marshall, Monroe, 8; full 
list of, ib. 

Seward, Mr., 46, 83, 261, 263, 304, 
399 ; Mexican treaty, 438. 

Shaler, William, consul-general to 
Algiers, negotiator with Decatur, 
222, 223. 

Simmons, Senator, 438, 439. 

Skjoldebrand, Pierre Eric, 212. 

Slavers, fitted out in English ports, 
264; in New York, ib. 

Slavery, extract from Quarterly Re¬ 
view on abolishment of, 237. 

Slaves, negro, first imported into 
New Amsterdam, 233 ; exclusive 
right to introduce, into Spanish 
American provinces given to Great 
Britain, 234 ; introduction of, into 
colonies a means of preventing 
emigration from England, ib.; 
importation of, punishable by 
death, 244 ; law passed by Con¬ 
gress, ib. 

Slave trade, when first prohibited 
in this country, 235 ; when first by 
English Parliament, ib.] by Den¬ 
mark, ib. ; United States first to 
prohibit, ib. ; motion of Brough¬ 
am on suppression of, 236 ; Mr. 
Marryatt, extract from speech 
on, ib. ; action of Congress of Vi¬ 
enna relative to, 238; right of 
search demanded by England in 
order to abolish, ib. ; real reason 
for England's action against, 239 ; 
article introduced in Treaty of 
Ghent relative to, ib.; treaty of 
England with Spain obtained abo¬ 
lition of, south of equator, 240 ; 
action of Congress relative to, 
communicated by John Quincy 
Adams to Lord Castlereagh, 241 ; 
two American vessels condemned 
by English Admiralty court for 
carrying on, 242 ; condemned as 
piracy by Lord Castlereagh, ib.; 
declared piracy by Congress, 244 ; 
resolutions on subject of, passed 
by House of Representatives, 245; 
denounced as piracy under law of 
nations, ib. ; England succeeded 
in making twenty-four treaties 
for suppression of, in 1849, 258 ; 
greatly revived during Crimean 
war, 258; Act of Parliament 


gives jurisdiction to British Ad¬ 
miralty Court over vessels en¬ 
gaged in, with Brazil, ib.; Mr. 
Seward accepts English proposi¬ 
tion for more stringent treaty re¬ 
lating to, 263; temporary out¬ 
break of, just before the war, 
264. 

Sound dues, first mention of, 306; 
income derived from, 307; Mr. 
Clay on, 308 ; despatches to Mr. 
Webster by Mr. Wheaton on, ib.\ 
arrangement concerning, 309; 
an obstacle to Prussian com¬ 
merce, ib.; Mr. Upshur on, 310, 
311 ; Mr. Buchanan empowers 
charge d’affaires to offer Danish 
government indemnity for, 312 ; 
Mr. Marcy’s action concerning, 
313; President Pierce on state¬ 
ment of Danish legation concern¬ 
ing, 314; Denmark suggests 
capitalizing, ib.; extract from 
message of President Pierce on, 
315 ; forever abolished by Euro¬ 
pean congress, ib.; treaty of 
United States concerning, 316 
note. 

Stanley, Henry M., 364. 

Statutes at Large, 36. 

Steam vessel, $10,000, offered for 
first, to arrive from sea at any 
Bolivian river port, 331. 

St. Lawrence, free navigation of 
river, 282 ; Air. Rush on, 284 note; 
Mr. Clay on, 285,286; report on, 
Mr. Gallatin on, 287, 288 ; Presi¬ 
dent Adams on, 287 ; free naviga¬ 
tion of, gained as concession, not 
as a right, ib. ; end of treaty 
granting the free navigation of, 
290 ; navigation of, still claimed 
as a right in 1871, discussed, 
treated in 26th article of treaty, 
ib.; Gulf of, fishing in, 411. 

Stowell, Lord, 243. 

Strozzi, Leonardo, 41. 

Sumner, Senator, 143, 263. 

Talleyrand, Prince, on consular offi¬ 
cers, 71. 

Taylor, President, 429. 

Thiers, Mr., 253. 

Thornton, Sir Edward, 430. 

Trade, colonial, of United States 
when first independent, 424 ; con- 





INDEX. 


469 


ditions of, with East Indies, 427, ! 
428: condition of, with Canada 
and British colonies before 1845, 
429; increase of, from 1844 to 
1851, ib;\ proposal for reciprocal 
free, between Canada and United 
States, ib. ; Presidents Taylor and 
Fillmore submit bills for recipro¬ 
cal free, to Congress, ib. ; the Re¬ 
ciprocity treaty of 1854 ends 1866, 
430 ; new negotiations by Sir Ed¬ 
ward Thornton, 1869, their fail¬ 
ure, ib. ; of Hawaiian Islands of 
United States, with Antilles, 445 ; 
old colonial system of, ib. ; act 
of Congress of 1864 hampers, 
with Spain and her possessions, 
447 ; Spanish retaliation, ib. ; com¬ 
mercial treaty, 1884, puts our, on 
same footing as Spanish, 450; 
statistics of United States sugar 
refining business, 455 ; objections 
by sugar refiners to treaty as in¬ 
fluencing sugar, ib. 

Treaties, with Borneo, China, Ja¬ 
pan, Madagascar, Muscat, Persia, 
Samoa, Siam, 62 ; with Tripoli, 
Algeria, Tunis, 63 ; most-favored- 
nation clause of, 421 ; example, 
422 ; England makes twenty-four 
in 1849, for suppression of slave- 
trade, 258. 

Treaty power, in the House and 
Senate, 22 

Trescot, William H., Halifax award, 
416. 

Trescott, Henry, 429. 

Tripoli, treaty with, by whom made, 
terms and curious article in, 215 ; 
war declared with, 218 ; blockade 
of, 219 ; capture of frigate Phila¬ 
delphia in harbor of, ib. ; roman¬ 
tic incident of the war with, ib. ; 
peace with, and results of, 220. 

-■, Bashaw of, pays indemnity, 

and releases Christian captives, 
224. 

Trousdale, Mr., 325, 337, 34U 342. 


Tunis, negotiations with, 216; 
Christian slaves given up by, 
230 ; treaty with Bey of, by whom 
made, 217; objections by our 
Government to articles in, ib .; 
objections of Bey of, ib. ; final 
settlement of treaty with, by 
whom effected, 218 ; cost to 
United States, 218 note ; remark 
of Bey of, on Decatur, 224. 

Tuyl, Baron de, 296, 297, 298, 299, 
300. 

Tyler, President, 251, 255. 

Upshur, Mr., 311. 

Urquiza, General, 320, 321, 322, 
323, 324. 

Uruguay, navigation of, declared 
common to contracting states, 
321 ; treaty providing for free 
navigation of, 322. 

Vroom, Mr., 142. 

Walewski, Count, 396. 

Washburne, Mr., 135. 

Washington, General, proposition 
of, concerning treaty with Al¬ 
giers, 208. 

-, ship, in Nootka Sound, 

1788, 292. 

Waterwitch, steamer, sent by 
United States to explore rivers 
emptying into La Plata, 321; gets 
aground in river Parana, and 
fired into by Paraguayan fort, 
327. 

Webster, Mr., 188, 255, 256, 308, 
309, 310, 311 ; report on commerce 
with Zollverein, 433. 

Wellington, Duke of, 248, 249. 

Wheaton, Henry, 44, 190, 250, 308 ; 
negotiates for commercial privi¬ 
leges with Germany, 431 ; his in¬ 
structions, 432 ; treaty with Zoll¬ 
verein, 433, 434. 

Wigfall, Senator, 438. 























































% 


| MAR 1959 


®0l. Y. 


V 



